IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – Legal threshold for divorce on the ground of cruelty is stringent and must be supported by cogent and consistent evidence – Courts are bound to adjudicate not on sentiment, but on facts and law.

JUDGMENT

Chittaranjan Dash, J.—By means of this appeal, the Appellant has challenged the judgment dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, in C.P. No. 959/2018, whereby the petition filed by the Appellant under Sections 12(1)(a) and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “HMA”), seeking a decree of nullity and/or dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, was dismissed.

2. The background facts of the case are that the marriage between the Appellant-Wife and the Respondent-Husband was solemnised on 30.01.2015 at Bhubaneswar as per Hindu customs. After marriage, the parties began cohabiting as husband and wife and undertook several domestic and international trips, including to Australia, Maldives, Goa, Mumbai, Vizag, Puri, Siridi, Coorg, and Mysore. However, the Appellant alleged that despite the apparent normalcy, the marriage was marred by emotional and mental cruelty inflicted by the Respondent and his family, including persistent dowry demands, humiliation, and psychological abuse. She further claimed that the marriage was never consummated owing to the Respondent’s unwillingness or incapacity, and that she was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home on 11.01.2017, compelling her to return to her parental residence. Consequently, the Appellant sought for both annulment of the marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the HMA on the ground of non-consummation, and alternatively, dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) on the ground of cruelty in C.P. No.959 of 2018 before the Family Court, Bhubaneswar. The Respondent, subsequently, entered appearance and filed a written statement vehemently denying all allegations, asserting that the marriage was consummated, that the couple lived as husband and wife for several years, and that the allegations of cruelty and dowry were afterthoughts intended to mislead the court. He placed on record his evidence including joint travel records and photographs indicating shared domestic life well beyond the date the Appellant claimed to have left the matrimonial home. After recording evidence from both sides, including the parties and their respective family members, the Family Court, by its judgment dated 12.12.2023, dismissed the petition, holding that the Appellant had failed to establish the allegations and that the suit lacked merit. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. Mr. S.K. Mishra appearing on behalf of the Appellant, contends that the Family Court erred in dismissing her petition despite clear and consistent pleadings, supported by oral evidence, establishing that the marriage between the parties was never consummated due to the Respondent’s impotency. The Appellant, along with her parents, deposed to this fact, and being the person directly affected, her testimony regarding non-consummation ought to have been given due weight. He argues that the medical evidence relied upon by the Respondent, including the testimony of a radiologist, and not an andrologist, was insufficient to establish potency, and no medical tests were conducted by a qualified expert in male sexual disorders. Mr. Mishra further asserts that she had been subjected to continuous mental cruelty, particularly on account of dowry demands made by the Respondent and his parents, including demands for luxury cars such as a BMW 7 Series, an XUV 500, and later a Toyota Fortuner, for which substantial sums of money were allegedly demanded from her father. Mr. Mishra adds that the Appellant also deposed to instances of verbal abuse, social humiliation, and physical assault, including being rescued by her father, from a rented flat on the night of 11.01.2017, after she was allegedly confined and assaulted by the Respondent. He further contends that the Respondent’s attempt to question the character of the Appellant during the trial, without any substantiating evidence, itself amounted to further mental cru