IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – Cruelty by wife – A person is expected to give respect to another person in general and where it comes to relationship of Husband and Wife, it is expected that Wife should support Husband despite his physical infirmity.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Routray, J.—Heard Mr. M.B. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant-Wife and Mr. H. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Respondent-Husband.

2. Present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2023 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Puri in C.P. No.123 of 2019, wherein the decree of divorce has been granted at the behest of the Husband dissolving the marriage between the parties without any grant of permanent alimony.

3. The Wife-Appellant has come up in challenging the said judgment dated 10.07.2023 and according to her submissions, the ground of cruelty, based on which, the learned Family Court has granted decree of divorce is not established on record. It is further submitted on behalf of the Wife-Appellant that, it was the Husband, who compelled the Wife to leave the matrimonial companion and till date the Wife is staying separately in her parent’s house since 25.03.2018.

4. The admitted facts of the case are that, marriage between the parties solemnized on 1.6.2016 according to Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged on the part of the Husband that, the Wife was always passing comments towards physical infirmity of the Husband, for which unpleasant situations arose between the parties. In the meantime on 15.9.2016, the Wife left the house of the Husband and again came back on 5.1.2017 after negotiation, and then also continued to aspersing the Husband for his physical infirmity which resulted serious dispute between the parties and finally on 25.3.2018 she voluntarily left the matrimonial house. Thereafter she also lodged a criminal case alleging the offences under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and other offences against the Husband and in-law members.

5. Present proceeding was filed by the Husband on 03.04.2019 against the Wife praying to dissolve the marriage. In the said proceeding though two witnesses were examined on behalf of the Husband-Plaintiff, the Wife did not chose to examine any witness and not to adduce any evidence from her side though she cross-examined the Husband and his witnesses. Therefore, what is to be seen is that, in absence of any evidence led from the side of the Wife, whether the evidences brought on record by the Husband would satisfy his grounds of cruelty to grant the decree of divorce ?

6. Learned Judge, Family Court, Puri has framed five issues, amongst which Issue No.(ii) speaks about subjecting the Plaintiff to ill-treatment and mental cruelty by the Wife. All such issues including Issue No.(ii) has been answered in favour of the Husband.

7. It is not disputed that the Husband is a physically handicapped person. As borne out from the evidence of the Husband (P.W.1) that, the Wife is passing comments to her Husband saying “Kempa, Nikhatu, etc.” Though the Wife has cross-examined the Husband, but did not suggest anything to rebut such statements made on the part of he Husband and it is also admitted by the Wife that, she has initiated a criminal proceeding against the Husband and other in-law members. P.W.2 in his evidence has corroborated the statements of P.W.1 regarding the aspersions made by the Wife towards his physical infirmity and here also the Wife did not able to rebut such contentions of P.W.2 made during his evidence.

8. Cruelty includes mental cruelty. Time and again, it has been clarified regarding the scope of mental cruelty. The Supreme Court in the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs), (1994) 1 SCC 337 have held as follows:-

“15. If so, the question arises what kind of cruel treatment does clause (i-a) contemplate? In particular, what is the kind of mental cruelty that is required to be established? While answering these questions, it must be kept in mind that the cruelty mentioned in clause (i-a) is a ground now for divorce as well as for judicial separation under Section 10. Another circumstance to be kept in mind is that even where the marriage has been irretrievably broken down, the Act, even after the 1976 (Amendment) Act, does not permit dis