The court established that a pattern of behavior constituting mental cruelty, including harassment and intimidation, justifies the dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Chittaranjan Dash, J.:

1. By means of this appeal, the Appellant has challenged the joint judgment dated 07.08.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, granting the dissolution of marriage subject to payment of Rs.63,00,000/- towards permanent alimony in C.P. No. 153/2009, filed by the Respondent, and consequently, dismissing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in C.P. No. 531/2009.

2. The background facts of the case are that, the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was solemnised on 11.05.2003, in Cuttack. After the marriage, they resided in their matrimonial house in Haripur, Jagatsinghpur, and subsequently resided in Bhubaneswar, Bangalore, USA, Japan, etc. Their marriage soon became strained, with the Respondent alleging that the Appellant pressured him to sever ties with his parents, demanded financial control by insisting on being the sole nominee in his insurance policies, and frequently engaged in quarrels. On the other hand, the Appellant accused the Respondent of emotional neglect, financial control, and isolation, stating that he restricted her access to money and humiliated her in front of others After facing continuous marital discord, the Respondent filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in C.P. No. 153/2009, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, where he alleged that the Appellant’s conduct had made it impossible for him to continue the marriage. His primary grievances included constant quarrels, financial control, and the forced eviction of his elderly parents from their home by the Appellant and local goons. In response to the divorce petition, the Appellant contested the allegations and sought to prevent the dissolution of the marriage. To counter the Respondent’s claim, she subsequently filed C.P. No. 531/2009 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. She denied all allegations and claimed that the Respondent abandoned her without justifiable cause and that she had always been willing to reconcile and resume cohabitation, but the Respondent refused to continue the marriage by being influenced by his parents. She contended that her marital rights had been unfairly denied.

3. The learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, delivered a consolidated judgment, addressing both cases together. The Court granted the prayer for divorce in C.P. No. 153/2009, holding that the Appellant’s conduct amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It also observed that her persistent behaviour of quarrelling, financial control, and acts of intimidation against the parents of the Respondent, when she, along with local goons, forcibly ousted the Respondent’s elderly parents, deeming it a significant act of cruelty. Consequently, since the marriage was legally dissolved, the Court dismissed the Appellant’s prayer for restitution of conjugal rights, in C.P. No. 531/2009.

4. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submits that the impugned judgment dated 07.08.2023, passed by the Family Court, Cuttack, is erroneous, legally unsustainable, and liable to be set aside. He contends that the dispute arose not from any cruelty inflicted by her but due to the Respondent’s deliberate desertion and abandonment of the marital relationship. Her bona fide intention to resume cohabitation was clearly demonstrated by filing C.P. No. 531/2009 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Mr. Bose argues that the Family Court misinterpreted the concept of mental cruelty, wrongly equating marital disputes, financial disagreements, and conflicts with in-laws with cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The allegation that she forcibly ousted the Respondent’s parents is baseless and unsupported by independent evidence, with the court relying only on the Respondent’s family’s testimonies. Additionally, the multiple legal cases f