Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Ori) 314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.TALAPATRA, SAVITRI RATHO, JJ.
Ananta Charan Tripathy – Appellant
Versus
Sarita Satapathy – Respondent
MATA No. 56 of 2020
Decided On : 26-06-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.K. Mishra
For the Respondent: A.K. Pattnaik

A decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act requires substantial evidence of cruelty or desertion, which must not rely solely on allegations, while recognizing irretrievable breakdown as a basis for relief.

Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13 and 23 - Appeal challenging lower court's dismissal of divorce petition based on alleged cruelty and desertion - Appellant's accusations insufficiently substantiated to meet burden of proof required for divorce - Court acknowledges both parties desire to resume marital relations, but finds marriage irretrievably broken down - (Paras 11, 16, 21, 22)

(B) Divorce - Grounds - The grounds of cruelty and desertion require substantial evidence; mere allegations without proof do not suffice - Court affirms separation status quo despite mutual regret expressed by parties aimed at reconciliation - (Paras 6, 20)

(C) Permanent Alimony - Court awards Rs 15 lakhs as permanent alimony to the respondent considering her unemployment and dependence on parental support. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The couple married in January 2007 and had a child; the respondent left the marital home in July 2008 due to allegations of cruelty and demands for dowry; the appellant sought divorce on these grounds, claiming mental torture and deprivation of marital rights.

Findings of Court:
The Family Court found insufficient evidence to substantiate claims of cruelty or desertion; however, acknowledged the marriage's irretrievable breakdown.

Issues: (i) Maintainability of the appellant’s case; (ii) Whether the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty; (iii) Whether the respondent deserted the appellant; (iv) Whether the appellant is entitled to divorce.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the necessity of substantial proof for claims of cruelty or desertion, highlighting that long separation alone cannot validate grounds for divorce.

Result: The appeal is allowed, the marriage is dissolved, and the appellant must pay Rs 15 lakhs in permanent alimony.

JUDGMENT :

SAVITRI RATHO, J.

1. “Marriages are made in heaven, or so it is said. But we are more often than not made to wonder what happens to them by the time they descend down to earth. Though there is legal machinery in place to deal with such cases, these are perhaps the toughest for the courts to deal with. Such is the case presently before us.”

Thus observed the Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Bhatnagar vs. Deepa Bhatngar, (2011) 5 SCC 234. We are faced with a similar situation.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur in Civil Proceeding No. 168 of 2011, dismissing the petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent which had been solemnised on 24.01.2007.

The C.P. was originally filed in the Court of learned Family Judge, Cuttack as C.P. No. 663 of 2010 and thereafter transferred to Jajpur and renumbered as C.P. No. 168 of 2011.

CASE OF THE APPELLANT – HUSBAND

3. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 24.01.2007 as per Hindu customs and rites after which they lived together as husband and wife and were blessed with a female child on 14.01.2008. The appellant got a job in an U.P. School under rehabilitation assistance scheme in place of his father on the basis of no objection from all his six sisters with an agreement to take care of all of them. Accordingly, he performed the marriage of his unmarried sisters and incurred loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from his G.P.F. account and different banks and installments were being deducted from his account. The respondent-wife was mentally torturing the appellant, by blaming his parents and sisters and ill treating him and them. His father in law and brother in law were regularly visiting his house and pressurizing him to visit their house in Bidyadharpur regularly. She would make wild allegations against the father and brother of the appellant and visit the house of their immediate neighbor inspite of protests of the appellant. After she conceived, she asked her parents and brother to take her to their house and left on 15th July 2007. The respondent would call the appellant to her father’s house where she, her parents and her brother compelled him to stay back and attend office from there. They wanted the appellant to stay in their house as domesticated son in law. The appellant had sent one gentlemen namely Banshidhar Mohapatra, who was related to the father of respondent to bring her back to his house but it was in vain. Inspite of his several attempts and letters, the respondent did not come back but compelled the appellant to stay in her paternal house. While staying there, she filed a case under Section – 125 Cr.P.C against him. During conciliation, the appellant had gone to the house of the respondent with his counsel but she declared that he should visit her 8 - 9 times for her satisfaction. He had gone to her paternal house regularly and stayed with the respondent, but the respondent did not allow him to co habit, inspite of request by him stating that unless he separated from his family she would not allow him to have conjugal relations . He therefore filed the proceeding praying for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce.

CASE OF THE RESPONDENT-WIFE

4. The respondent entered appearance and filed her written statement refuting the allegations made against her by the appellant . She stated that the appellant, his parents, brothers in law and the unmarried sisters instigated the appellant and demanded a thick gold chain, other house hold articles and cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 30.06.2008 her father lodged an F.I.R. before Gurudijhatia P.S. to rescue her and the matter was compromised. On 16.07.2008 the appellant brought her in an ailing condition and forced her to undergo an abortion at Badachana P.H.C. and then left her in the parental house. She denied that she tortured