Orissa High Court
Priyanka Nayak@Pradhan vs Pranaya Pradhan@Nayak on 5 May, 2025
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray, Chittaranjan Dash
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-May-2025 17:54:50
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.264 of 2023
(From the judgment dated 10.07.2023 passed by learned Judge,
Family Court, Puri in C.P. No.123 of 2019)
Priyanka Nayak@Pradhan .... Appellant
-versus-
Pranaya Pradhan@Nayak .... Respondent
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Appellant : Mr. M.B. Das, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. H. Mohapatra, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
JUDGMENT
5th May 2025
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. M.B. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant-Wife
and Mr. H. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Respondent-Husband.
2. Present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated
10.07.2023 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Puri in C.P.
No.123 of 2019, wherein the decree of divorce has been granted at the
behest of the Husband dissolving the marriage between the parties
without any grant of permanent alimony.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-May-2025 17:54:50
3. The Wife-Appellant has come up in challenging the said
judgment dated 10.07.2023 and according to her submissions, the
ground of cruelty, based on which, the learned Family Court has
granted decree of divorce is not established on record. It is further
submitted on behalf of the Wife-Appellant that, it was the Husband,
who compelled the Wife to leave the matrimonial companion and till
date the Wife is staying separately in her parent's house since
25.03.2018.
4. The admitted facts of the case are that, marriage between the
parties solemnized on 1.6.2016 according to Hindu rites and customs.
It is alleged on the part of the Husband that, the Wife was always
passing comments towards physical infirmity of the Husband, for
which unpleasant situations arose between the parties. In the meantime
on 15.9.2016, the Wife left the house of the Husband and again came
back on 5.1.2017 after negotiation, and then also continued to
aspersing the Husband for his physical infirmity which resulted serious
dispute between the parties and finally on 25.3.2018 she voluntarily
left the matrimonial house. Thereafter she also lodged a criminal case
alleging the offences under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and other offences
against the Husband and in-law members.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-May-2025 17:54:50
5. Present proceeding was filed by the Husband on 03.04.2019
against the Wife praying to dissolve the marriage. In the said
proceeding though two witnesses were examined on behalf of the
Husband-Plaintiff, the Wife did not chose to examine any witness and
not to adduce any evidence from her side though she cross-examined
the Husband and his witnesses. Therefore, what is to be seen is that, in
absence of any evidence led from the side of the Wife, whether the
evidences brought on record by the Husband would satisfy his grounds
of cruelty to grant the decree of divorce ?
6. Learned Judge, Family Court, Puri has framed five issues,
amongst which Issue No.(ii) speaks about subjecting the Plaintiff to ill-
treatment and mental cruelty by the Wife. All such issues including
Issue No.(ii) has been answered in favour of the Husband.
7. It is not disputed that the Husband is a physically handicapped
person. As borne out from the evidence of the Husband (P.W.1) that,
the Wife is passing comments to her Husband saying "Kempa,
Nikhatu, etc." Though the Wife has cross-examined the Husband, but
did not suggest anything to rebut such statements made on the part of
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-May-2025 17:54:50
the Husband and it is also admitted by the Wife that, she has initiated a
criminal proceeding against the Husband and other in-law members.
P.W.2 in his evidence has corroborated the statements of P.W.1
regarding the aspersions made by the Wife towards his physical
infirmity and here also the Wife did not able to rebut such contentions
of P.W.2 made during his evidence.
8. Cruelty includes mental cruelty. Time and again, it has been
clarified regarding the scope of mental cruelty. The Supreme Court in
the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs), (1994) 1 SCC 337 have held
as follows:-
"15. If so, the question arises what kind of cruel treatment
does clause (i-a) contemplate? In particular, what is the
kind of mental cruelty that is required to be established?
While answering these questions, it must be kept in mind
that the cruelty mentioned in clause (i-a) is a ground now
for divorce as well as for judicial separation under Section
10. Another circumstance to be kept in mind is that even
where the marriage has been irretrievably broken down, the
Act, even after the 1976 (Amendment) Act, does not permit
dissolution of marriage on that ground. This circumstance
may have to be kept in mind while ascertaining the type of
cruelty contemplated by Section 13(1)(i-a).
16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be
defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party
such mental pain and suffering as would make it not
possible for that party to live with the other. In other words,
mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties
cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The
situation must be such that the wronged party cannot
reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-May-2025 17:54:50
continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to
prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the
health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion,
regard must be had to the social status, educational level of
the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or
otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they
were already living apart and all other relevant facts and
circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to
set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not
amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be
determined in each case having regard to the facts and
circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and
allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which
they were made."
9. In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, it is
clarified as follows:-
"98. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of
this Court and other courts, we have come to the definite
conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive
definition of the concept of "mental cruelty" within which
all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court
in our considered view should even attempt to give a
comprehensive definition of mental cruelty.
99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behavior
is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no
bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behavior in
one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one
case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept
of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his
upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and
cultural background, financial position, social status,
customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and
their value system.
100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot
remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time,
impact of modern culture through print and electronic media
and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now
may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or
vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or
fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in
matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-May-2025 17:54:50
adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar
facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors
in consideration.
101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for
guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some
instances of human behavior which may be relevant in
dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances
indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative
and not exhaustive:
(i) On considerations of complete matrimonial life of the
parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not
make possible for the parties to live with each other could
come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial
life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation
is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked
to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other
party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to
cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner,
indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it
makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely
intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep
anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused
by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental
cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment
calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life
of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behavior of one
spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the
other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant
danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and
weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect,
indifference or total departure from the normal standard of
conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or
deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-May-2025 17:54:50
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy,
selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and
dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for
grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear
of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would
not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental
cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a
few isolated instances over a period of years will not
amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a
fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated
to an extent that because of the acts and behavior of a
spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live
with the other party any longer, may amount to mental
cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of
sterilization without medical reasons and without the
consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife
undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or
without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an
act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for
considerable period without there being any physical
incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after
marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to
cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous
separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial
bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction
though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie,
the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of
marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the
feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations,
it may lead to mental cruelty."
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-May-2025 17:54:50
10. As stated by the witness in the case at hand that the Wife passed
comments to the physical infirmity of the Husband saying him as
"Kempa, Nikhatu" remains un-rebutted. The Wife making such
statements against the Husband towards his physical infirmity
definitely is causing mental pain. Such behaviour by the Wife towards
the Husband discloses her thought and respect to the Husband. A
person is expected to give respect to another person in general and
where it comes to relationship of Husband and Wife, it is expected that
the Wife should support the Husband despite his physical infirmity, if
any. Here it is a case where the Wife made aspersions to Husband
towards his physical infirmity and passed comments regarding the
same. This definitely in our opinion amounts to mental cruelty leading
to draw an inference against the Wife that she treated her Husband with
cruelty owing to his physical deformity. Thus we are inclined with the
finding of the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri that the Wife has
treated her Husband with mental cruelty. On such ground, we are
satisfied that the requirement in terms of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act is attracted to grant the decree of divorce. We thus
confirm the impugned judgment granting the decree of divorce
between the parties dissolving their marriage.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-May-2025 17:54:50
11. At this stage, with regard to grant of permanent alimony and
return of Streedhan properties, as claimed by the Appellant-Wife, are
left open to her to be agitated before the learned Judge, Family Court,
Puri in terms of Sections 25 & 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. We say
so for the reason that, there is no material produced on record with
regard to income of the Husband or the Wife and in absence of any
material, we are unable to decide the question of permanent alimony
here.
12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal is
disposed of.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
B.K. Barik/Secretary
