Back
2015 Supreme(Ori) 706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Vinod Prasad, S.K. Sahoo, JJ.
PRAVAT RANJAN MOHANTY - APPELLANT
Versus
RUKMAYANEE MANGARAJ - RESPONDENT
Mata Nos. 84 and 91 of 2013
Decided On : 14-07-2015
Laxmidhar Pangari, Bikash Jena, Alok Kumar Das, Saroj Kumar Mishra and Sandipan Mohanty, Advocates for the Respondent
The main legal point established is the entitlement of a spouse to divorce and permanent alimony under the Hindu Marriage Act, based on evidence of ill-treatment and the financial capacity of the parties.
Headnote:
Divorce - Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1) - Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-wife filed for divorce citing physical and mental torture by the respondent-husband, including demands for dowry and sexual harassment. The respondent-husband denied the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the petitioner-wife, granting the divorce and awarding permanent alimony of Rs. 4,00,000 to be paid by the respondent-husband.
Issues: The court addressed the issues of cruelty, entitlement to divorce, and entitlement to permanent alimony or monthly maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the respondent-husband had ill-treated the petitioner-wife, leading to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The court also considered the income of the parties and the principles of providing reasonable comfort to the entitled spouse.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the decree of divorce and the quantum of permanent alimony at Rs. 4,00,000, to be paid by the respondent-husband.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Sahoo, J.
"Chains do not hold a marriage together. It is threads, hundreds of tiny threads which sew people together through the years."
- Simone Signoret
1. MATA No. 84 of 2013 is an appeal preferred by Pravat Ranjan Mohanty (hereafter 'the respondent-husband') under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 12.7.2013 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar passed in Civil Proceeding No. 360 of 2010 in allowing the petition filed by Rukmayanee Mangaraj (hereafter 'the petitioner-wife') under section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce and passing a decree of divorce and dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband with effect from the date of decree and further directing the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs) to the petitioner-wife within two months of the order towards her permanent alimony.
2. MATA No. 91 of 2013 is an appeal preferred by the petitioner-wife challenging the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 12.07.2013 passed in Civil Proceeding No. 360 of 2010 and seeking for enhancement of the permanent alimony to Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs).
3. The petitioner-wife filed the divorce petition before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar on 3.9.2010 against the respondent-husband which was registered as MAT C.S. No. 1525 of 2010 which was subsequently transferred to the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar and it was reregistered as Civil Proceeding No. 360 of 2010.
It is the case of the petitioner-wife that she married the respondent-husband on 26.06.2009 in Maa Gouri Mandap, Ravi Talkies, Bhubaneswar as per Hindu rites and customs and the marriage was solemnized in the house of the respondent-husband situated at Plot No. 7, Suryanagar, Bhubaneswar. At the time of negotiation, the family members of the respondent-husband impressed upon the petitioner-wife that the respondent-husband was doing business and he was having a decent income and two of his brothers were working in the Public Sector Undertakings and the family was very financially sound.
It is the further case of the petitioner-wife that after marriage when she reached at her in-laws' house on 27.6.2009, her in-laws family members showed indifferent and apathetic behaviour. During mid-night on that day, the respondent-husband came in a drunken manner and tried to sexually assault the petitioner-wife in a very inhuman manner. The respondent-husband was also smoking cigarette and chewing gutka while doing sex. The petitioner-wife requested the respondent-husband not to smoke and to behave properly but her request did not yield any result.
It is the further case of the petitioner-wife that on the fourth night i.e. on 28.06.2009 the respondent-husband came to the bedroom and abused her in filthy language and demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- within a fortnight from her parents. The respondent-husband also kept physical relation with the petitioner-wife against her will. On 29.6.2009 the respondent-husband kicked the petitioner-wife and pulled her by hair forcing her to bring a cup of tea for him. The petitioner-wife narrated the torture on her by her husband before her mother-in-law but unfortunately without showing any sympathy, her mother-in-law scolded her and warned of more torture if she would fail to bring Rs. 3,00,000/- from her father. On the day of reception i.e. on 3.7.2009 the petitioner-wife was suffering from high fever and she requested her husband to get some medicine for her but the respondent-husband again misbehaved with her and shouted at her saying that he was not her servant. The respondent-husband continued to torture the petitioner-wife physically and mentally and even gone to the extent of burning her skin with a lighted cigarette on the
