SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Ori) 299

High Court Of Orissa
BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI, P. K. MISRA
LAXMI ORAM @ TOPPO - Appellant
Versus
BIRSA ORAM - Respondent
C. A.  24  Of  1998
Decided On : 09/05/2002

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.Mishra, E.SADHANA KUMAR, H.M.DHAR, L.Panigrahi, M.R.MOHANTY, S.P.Misra

Lack of evidence of mental cruelty is crucial in granting a divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Headnote:

Divorce - Matrimonial Dispute - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13

Fact of the Case:

The appellant and respondent got married in 1992. The appellant's behavior changed after conceiving, leading to the respondent filing for divorce on grounds of mental cruelty. The Family Court granted the divorce, but the High Court set aside the decree due to lack of evidence of mental cruelty.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court set aside the divorce decree and remitted the matter back to the Family Court for fresh disposal, allowing the husband to amend the application and lead further evidence.

Issues: The main issue was the allegation of mental cruelty leading to the divorce application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that there was no evidence of mental cruelty to approve the divorce decree under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Final Decision: The High Court set aside the divorce decree and remitted the matter back to the Family Court for fresh disposal.

B. PANIGRAHI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in a Matrimonial Civil Proceeding No. 53 of 1996 whereby a decree of divorce was passed.

( 2 ) UNDISPUTEDLY the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnised on 12/05/1992 in village Chhend within Raghunathpali Police Station in the district of Sundargarh. After the marriage, the appellant joined with the respondent in the matrimonial house at Tagarmunda whereafter both the spouses went to Jamalpur where the respondent was serving in the Railway Department. The appellant after spending some days went back to her parents_ residence. Immediately she used to visit her matrimonial house at Tagarmunda. It has been stated by the respondent before the learned Judge, Family Court that gradually the attitude of the appellant became rude and obdurate. In the month of March, 1993 both the spouses stayed in a rented house for about seven months at Jamalpur. During that period the appellant conceived and her husband found that the behavioural pattern of the appellant had completely changed. After some time the respondent secured an employment in Rourkela Steel Plant as a Senior Operator and preferred to stay with his elder sister in quarter No. B/11, Basanti Colony, Rourkela. But the appellant did not join with her husband at Basanti Colony, Rourkela and instead stayed with her parents. When the respondent went to call her from father-in-law_s house, they suggested to remain as illatom-son-in-law to which the respondent took exception. After some time the appellant gave birth to a male child. Even after the birth of the child, respondent-husband had claimed to have invited the appellant to join him in their Basanti Colony residence at Rourkela, but the appellant on some pretext or other avoided to join with him. Thus, the respondent having suffered from mental cruelty due to dissociation of the appellant, therefore, filed an application before the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela.

( 3 ) THE appellant on the other hand, had filed her written statement and admitted the marriage which was solemnised on 12/05/1992. She has strongly refuted about the mental cruelty alleged to have been caused by her. She further denied the allegation of non-performance of the house-hold works in the husband_s residence. Rather the wife had claimed that she was subjected to mental cruelty on many occasions. It is stated by the appellant that during her pregnancy she became very anaemic and weak, yet her husband did not take her care. She was also denied the minimum maintenance during her period of stay in her parents_ house. None of her family members had ever suggested the respondent to be their illatom-son-in-law.

( 4 ) THE respondent was examined as P. W. 6 before the Family Court. He had claimed that the appellant used to stay in her parents_ house without informing her husband. While the respondent was working at jamalpur, the appellant used to stay at Tagarmunda. During that period they noticed abnormal behaviour of the appellant. In course of time, he came to Rourkela and secured an employment at the Steel Plant as a Senior Operator and was staying at Basanti Colony. P. W. 6 was then drawing a salary of Rs. 1250 per month. We find, the above statement has been corroborated by his brother who was examined as P. W. 5. P. W. 4 is a caste man of the parties. From the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the husband-respondent before the trial Court, we find nothing to suggest that the respondent-husband had suffered from mental cruelty at any time. The suit for divorce was filed only on the ground of cruelty, but since there has been no evidence adduced by the husband that due to the action of the appellant he was subjected to mental cruelty, we are not in a position to approve the decree of divorce granted by the learned Judge, Family Court. Accordingly, the decree of divorce passed under Section 13 of the Hin





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top