Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Ori) 517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ARINDAM SINHA, M.S. SAHOO, JJ.
Pramod Kumar Rout - Appellant
Versus
Puspita Rout - Respondent
MATA No.153 of 2023, MATA No.170 of 2023
Decided On : 07-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sourya Sundar Das, Senior Advocate Ms. S. Modi, Advocate

Evidence of mental cruelty was established, justifying dissolution of marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, where irretrievable breakdown of marriage was not independently recognized as a ground.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) - Dissolution of marriage sought on grounds of cruelty and desertion - The Court found that the parties, after a love marriage, faced irreconcilable differences leading to the wife's desertion - Evidence presented confirmed allegation of cruelty by the wife which warranted the dissolution of marriage - Allegations of physical assault and false complaints were substantiated, affecting the appellant's work life, thus validating grounds for divorce. (Paras 18-21)

(B) The Court framed the issues around whether irretrievable breakdown constituted grounds for divorce when not specified in the statute - It was held that while irretrievable breakdown is a distressing circumstance, it cannot independently found a petition under the Act without established grounds. (Paras 3, 12)

Facts of the case:
The marriage between the parties solemnized on 3rd June, 2013 faced issues due to allegations of cruelty made by the appellant against the respondent, including unwarranted police complaints that affected his career - The respondent claimed physical assault and made allegations of impropriety leading to the marital discord. (Paras 1, 8, 10)

Findings of Court:
The Court affirmed the appellant's claims of cruelty based on acts of the respondent that impacted his personal and professional life, finding no legitimate grounds for the wife’s allegations against him. The case established that substantive evidence supported the complaint of desertion and justified the divorce. (Paras 18-21)

Issues: The primary legal questions involved the validity of the grounds for divorce based on alleged cruelty and desertion, and the assessment of whether these constituted sufficient basis for relief under the Act. (Paras 4, 19)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the evidence of mental cruelty, including the wife's actions impacting the husband's life, met the threshold required for granting a divorce under the Act, and noted that mere desertion must be addressed in the context of the evidence presented. (Paras 18-21)

Result: The marriage is dissolved; the appeals are allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Table of Content
1. grounds for appeal against marriage dissolution. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on irretrievable breakdown and grounds for dissolution. (Para 3 , 4)
3. observations regarding the necessity of addressing marriage dissolution question. (Para 5 , 6)
4. background of marriage and allegations affecting functioning. (Para 7 , 8)
5. analysis of evidence and allegations, including criminal cases. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
6. specific allegations and their implications on cruelty ground. (Para 12 , 13)
7. consolidated findings from evidence and supporting judgments. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
8. findings on cruelty and desertion established. (Para 17 , 18)
9. citations of legal precedents relating to cruelty. (Para 19 , 20)
10. order dissolving marriage and disposal of appeals. (Para 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM SINHA, J.

1. Ms. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband. She submits, her client is aggrieved by judgment dated 23^rd February, 2023 made by the Family Court, dismissing her client’s petition for dissolution of the marriage and decreeing the separate civil proceeding filed by respondent-wife, for restitution. Her client has also filed MATA no.170 of 2023 in respect of the direction for restitution.

2. She submits, it was a love marriage. Both parties are service holders in the Government. The parties fell out within two years of marriage. Respondent-wife lodged false complaint against her client and other family members. Her client obtained anticipatory bail, which was unsuccessfully challenged by respondent-wife, right up to the Supreme Court. She relies on the petition of her client, paragraphs 16 to 19, his evidence and evidence of respondent-wife in the divorce case. She draws attention paragraphs 41 to 45 in deposition of cross- examination of respondent. Cruelty and desertion will be evident from evidence adduced by the parties. The judgment be reversed in appeal.

3. Mr. Das, learned senior advocate appears for respondent. He places the petition and submits, irretrievable breakdown of the marriage was stated in the reliefs claimed. He adds, cruelty and desertion were cited as reasons for irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Such breakdown is not a ground for dissolution of marriage provided under section 13 in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

4. He submits, allegations in the petition, when scrutinized, do not amount to allegations of cruelty. He takes us through evidence adduced in the divorce case, by appellant and respondent. On query made he submits, his client’s brother (Pintu) did not take the box. Likewise several allegations were made against his client as not having done right with her mother-in-law. The mother-in-law also did not take the box. As such nothing turns on the omissions.

5. For assistance of Court both parties had prepared informal paper books. We record our appreciation. We propose to deal with MATA no.153 of 2023 of the two appeals because controversy between the parties in it is whether or not the marriage should be dissolved. In our view, adjudication of the controversy will likely be basis for answer of the question in the other appeal preferred against impugned judgment, for having had decreed restitution.

6. To begin with we looked at the petition made under section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In paragraph-1 of the petition appellant had emphatically alleged that after the parties had developed intimacy with each other and after having their selection for appointment to the Odisha Financial Service, respondent had proposed for early marriage saying that her family was pressurizing her to get married. Appellant alleged that his elder brother had not yet married and so their marriage be deferred. However, at insistence of respondent and her father, appellant and his family agreed to early marriage. It was solemnized on 3^rd June, 2013 with undue haste because of unreasonable pressurization and insistence. There is no denial in the written statement.

7. The parties are o