Unsubstantiated allegations and threats of suicide constitute mental cruelty, justifying the dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM SINHA, J.

1. Mr. Chakravarty, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband and submits, the appeal be heard. His client is aggrieved by judgment dated 7th February, 2023 of the Family Court dismissing his petition for dissolution of the marriage, while directing Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance for respondent-wife and Rs.4,000/- per month for the minor son.

2. Respondent goes unrepresented. Order sheet bears record of sufficiency of service on she having refused to accept the postal article bearing notice of the appeal. In addition, direction for substituted service was complied with on the notice duly published in the newspaper. Furthermore, we had directed Registry to communicate website copy of our order dated 2nd April, 2024 to Mr. Bijay Kumar Pradhan, learned advocate, Balasore Bar Association and lay note confirming the communication. In this context we reproduce below paragraph 2 from our subsequent order dated 25th April, 2024.

“2. We reproduce below the direction from said order dated 2nd April, 2024.

“3. ……… Registry is directed to communicate website copy of this order through Registrar, Civil Court, Balasore to Mr. Bijay Kumar Pradhan, learned advocate of Balasore Bar Association and lay note confirming the communication. It is made clear, we will proceed with hearing of the appeal on adjourned date, irrespective of representation/ appearance by respondent-wife.”

Registrar Civil Court, Balasore has by letter dated 22nd April, 2024 said there was due service. We find the learned advocate served had made endorsement in acknowledging receipt on 22nd April, 2024. We reproduce below the endorsement.

“I would like to intimate you that I have neither any communication address nor contact with the Respondent Sunita Das @ Samal.”

… … …”

3. Mr. Chakravarty submits, cruelty was ground taken. Respondent was cruel to his client by firstly, falsely alleging illicit relationship with one Aparajita Giri, a married woman. Second ground of cruelty is successive attempts to commit suicide. He submits further that these two grounds are based on facts as will appear from the written statement filed by respondent and questions/suggestions put to his client in cross- examination. There is no dispute the allegation was made. It was not proved as a fact. Hence, a false allegation. There is also no dispute on respondent’s attempts to commit suicide.

4. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa , reported in AIR (2013) SC 2176, paragraph 14, reproduced below.

“14. Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh, we could add a few more. Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.”

(emphasis supplied)

He then relies on earlier judgment of said Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 . He submits further, respondent went so far as to turn sister of his client against him. After evidence was closed from side of his client, respondent influenced his sister to facilitate her to return to his parent’s house. So much so, the sister was RW-2, deposing from side of respondent. After impugned judgment was passed, respondent again left.

5. He then relies on Narendra v. K. Meena , reported in (2016) 9 SCC 455 to submit, threatening to commit suicide is also a ground of mental cruelty. Paragraph 14 from Indian