Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Ori) 254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Talapatra, Savitri Ratho, JJ.
Ramesh Chandra Samal - Appellant
Versus
Jayshree Biswal - Respondent
MATA No.109 of 2019
Decided On : 23-06-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R.C.Nayak, Advocate on behalf of Mr.A.K.Mohapatra, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. A.N.Pattanaik, Advocate

Trivial marital conflicts do not equate to legal cruelty; however, persistent destructive behavior affecting a spouse’s mental well-being can justify divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Headnote:(A) Family Court Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) - Appeal for divorce refused - Family Court dismissed petition citing lack of evidence for cruelty or desertion - The expectation of reconciliation was not met after interactions - Repeated allegations of extramarital affairs were unproven - Trivial quarrels were not grounds for cruelty. (Paras 1-26)

(B) Cruelty - Mental cruelty assessed based on behavior that impacts a spouse's well-being - Open declarations of discontent cited as relevant behavior to assess marital relationship breakdown - Ten years of separation underscored irretrievable breakdown, warranting divorce. (Paras 22-24)

Facts of the case:
Husband appeals against Family Court's decision to dismiss his divorce petition citing neglect and verbal abuse from the wife, alongside her abandonment. He claims failed reconciliation attempts. The wife denies allegations and counters with claims of persistent mistreatment.

Findings of Court:
The Family Court found insufficient ground to grant divorce based on alleged cruelty and desertion. However, after reassessment, the appellate court found substantial grounds for mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown.

Issues: Evidence of cruelty by the wife and claims of desertion were key focal points for the court's assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that trivial quarrels fall within normal marital disputes and do not constitute cruelty in a legal sense; however, a pattern of disruption and lack of emotional connection may warrant dissolution.

Result: Appeal allowed; marriage dissolved with an order for permanent alimony of Rs. 30 lakhs.

Table of Content
1. factual background of marriage and attempts at reconciliation. (Para 2 , 3)
2. allegations of cruelty and divorce petition details. (Para 4 , 5)
3. issues framed by the family court. (Para 6)
4. arguments by appellant and spouse's allegations. (Para 8 , 9)
5. respondent's counterarguments and request for alimony. (Para 10)
6. analysis of credibility of witnesses and merits of claims. (Para 12 , 15 , 16)
7. court's reasoning on allegations and evidence review. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
8. court's analysis of desertion and cruelty. (Para 21 , 22)
9. conclusion on cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. (Para 23)
10. court orders regarding divorce and alimony. (Para 24 , 25)
11. final decree of divorce and terms set forth. (Para 26)

JUDGMENT :

Savitri Ratho, J.

Before proceeding to deliver the judgment in this case, we deem it apposite to quote an observation of the Supreme Court in the case of N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane reported in (1975) 2 SC 326 : which very aptly describes the situation which a Court deciding a matrimonial dispute has to often deal with, which is as follows:

“The court has to deal, not with an ideal husband and an ideal wife (assuming any such exist) but with the particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a near-ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to a matrimonial court for, even if they may not be able to drown their differences, their ideal attitudes may help them overlook or gloss over mutual faults and failures.”

2. This appeal has been filed by the husband under Section – 19 of the Family Courts Act, challenging the judgment dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur in Civil Proceeding No.247/2017 filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act , dismissing his prayer to dissolve his marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce.

3. As the parties have a minor daughter, before hearing the matter on merit, we had interacted with the parties on 28.02.2023 with the hope that they would agree for a reconciliation. Before that, on 07.09.2022, there had been another interaction by this Court. But the efforts for reconciliation were unsuccessful, for which the appeal was finally heard the on merit on 05.04.2023.

CASE OF APPELLANT HUSBAND

4. The marriage of the parties had been solemnized on 27.06.2012 at Shanti Mandap Jaipur Town according to Hindu convention and rites. Both stayed together as husband and wife at village Kantipur for a period of six months. Dissension arose due to allegations raised by the respondent about extra marital affairs of the appellant with another lady. She also expressed her inability to adjust herself with his family members and on 25.01.2013 she insisted that the appellant live with her separately in Jajpur Town. When he did not agree, she became furious and abused him saying ‘rustic, bastard’ etc. On 26.01.2013, the appellant called his father in law to his house and informed him about her behaviour and her father cautioned the respondent and convinced her to behave properly with the appellant and his family members. The respondent used to avoid performing the routine household work and would leave her bed at 9.30 A.M. and misbehaved in case any family member advised her about anything. On 15.08.2013 at about 10.30 A.M. the appellant requested the respondent to help his ailing mother with the cooking. But she became furious and said that she is not his maid servant and went inside the bed room along with her minor daughter, locked the door and slept till 3.00 P.M. On repeated calls of the appellant, she got enraged and opened the door and when asked by the appellant the reason for doing so, assaulted him with a broom. A village meeting was convened that night to resolve the dispute. The village gentry convinced her to behave properly for a happy conjugal life. But she disclosed openly that the appellant is not her choice and her attitude did not change. On 25.08.2013 at about 10.30 A.M., with her bag and b