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

2016 Supreme(Ori) 167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
VINOD PRASAD AND BISWANATH RATH, JJ.
Madan Sundar Behera - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Pratima Sahu - Respondent
M.A.T.A.No.87 of 2014
Decided on : 19-4-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : M/s. Amit Pr.Bose, N.Hota, S.S.Routray, V.Kar & D.J.Sahoo
For the Respondent: M/s. D.Mund, R.K.Acharya, S.N.Padhee & P.K.Behera.

The main legal point established is the court's reliance on the settlement between the parties, referencing the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.Srinivas Rao v. D.A.Deepa, to dispose of the proceeding and grant the divorce decree.

Headnote:

Matrimonial Appeal - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) - Summary: The court dismissed the appellant-husband's petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After failed attempts at reconciliation, the parties agreed to a divorce decree with the husband paying Rs.5,00,000 as permanent alimony and the wife withdrawing all criminal cases against him. The court disposed of the proceeding in line with the settlement, referencing the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.Srinivas Rao v. D.A.Deepa.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant-husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing ill-treatment and a breakdown in the marital relationship. The respondent-wife contested, alleging forced departure from the matrimonial home and demands for money by the appellant's parents.

Finding of the Court:

After failed attempts at reconciliation, the court allowed the divorce decree with the husband paying Rs.5,00,000 as permanent alimony and the wife withdrawing all criminal cases against him.

Issues: Marital dispute, ill-treatment, breakdown in marital relationship, demand for money, withdrawal of criminal cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the settlement between the parties, referencing the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.Srinivas Rao v. D.A.Deepa, to dispose of the proceeding and grant the divorce decree.

Final Decision: The matrimonial appeal was allowed, and the court granted a decree of divorce with the husband paying Rs.5,00,000 as permanent alimony and the wife withdrawing all criminal cases against him.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

This is a Matrimonial Appeal filed by the appellant-husband against the judgment and order dated 14th July, 2014 passed in Civil Proceeding No.31 of 2013 (Matrimonial Case No.144 of 2012) by the Judge, Family Court, Bhawanipatna rejecting an application under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Short fact involved in the case is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per their caste, custom and rituals on 22.2.2006 in the respondent-wife’s parents house at Kumbharpada in Bhawanipatna. The parties were blessed with a girl child on 13.1.2007. It is alleged by the appellant-husband that the matrimonial dispute arose in between them when the respondent-wife started ill-treating him after her return to her matrimonial home with the new born child and insisted the appellant to sleep in a separate bed. In the month of March, 2007, while the respondent was washing clothes of the child, respondent-wife threw the bucket in the well showing her abnormal behaviour and she also threatened to commit suicide, unless she is taken to her parental house in Bhawanipatna immediately. It is further alleged that since then the abnormal behavior and attitude of the respondent-wife towards the appellant as well as his parents increased day-by-day so much so that, even the respondent went to the extent of asking the appellant to leave their village by selling his parental property and to stay at Bhawanipatna, which the appellant refused. It is further submitted by the appellant that in order to bring change in the mindset of the respondent, the respondent was taken to her parental house and while she was staying there, she got admission in Hindi Ratna and Computer in the year 2008 and at a subsequent point of time, the respondent joined as a teacher in a English Medium School at Bhawanipatna without any information to the appellant. It is further averred that since January, 2010 there is no marital relationship between the parties and the respondent continued to behave in an abnormal manner and refused to return to the matrimonial home for which the appellant convened a meeting involving responsible persons of their caste society for settlement of the dispute, where the respondent disclosed that she cannot stay with the appellant at her matrimonial place but she is agreed to stay with her husband at Bhawanipatna. It is further alleged that respondent lodged a report at Bhawanipatna Town Police Station against the appellant, his parents and sister for offences under Sections 507/498-A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The mother of the appellant was arrested and there was also seizure of some of the properties. The appellant claimed that under the circumstances, there is total breakdown in the marital relationship between the parties and consequently by filing the aforesaid matrimonial case, the appellant requested for a decree of divorce by way of dissolution of marriage.

3. In opposition, the respondent by filing a written statement contended that there exists marriage in between the appellant and the respondent and they have also been blessed with a girl child but she alleged that ill-treatment, both physically and mentally was inflicted on her after she gave birth to a girl child. Denying the allegation that the respondent left the matrimonial home on her own volition, she contended that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home in the month of May, 2010 to stay in her parents house. It is further contended that when the dispute was taken up for reconciliation, the parents of the appellant demanded Rs.1,50,000/-to enable the appellant to get a job of Panchayat Secretary and when she realised that she realized that she will never be accepted by the appellant, unless the aforesaid amount is given to them, she was compelled to lodge a report at Bhawanipatna Town Police Station against the appellant and his parents. On the basis of the



























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