Orissa High Court: In a set of two matrimonial appeals against the Family Court’s decision granting the decree of dissolution of marriage subject to payment of alimony of Rs. 63,00,000/- and dismissing the plea for restitution of conjugal rights, the Division Bench of Chittaranjan Dash* and BP Routray, JJ. dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s view, holding that a heart-wrenching picture of a marriage that once held promise but gradually descended into a cycle of emotional turmoil, intimidation, and relentless litigation was drawn.
The wife’s contradictory legal actions, filing for restitution of conjugal rights while simultaneously initiating domestic violence cases and excessive criminal complaints, only deepened the emotional chasm between the parties, leaving the husband with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The Court said that the wife’s conduct was far from reflecting a desire to rebuild the marriage and displayed a deliberate pattern of harassment and control, causing the husband severe mental agony and emotional.
“The law cannot compel a person to endure a marriage that has become a source of suffering and torment, and the husband is entitled to the peace and emotional relief that can only be found in the dissolution of this broken bond.”
Background
The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnised in 2003. Cuttack. Their marriage soon became strained, with the husband alleging that the wife 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 wife accused the husband of emotional neglect, financial control, and isolation, stating that he restricted her access to money and humiliated her in front of others.
The husband filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’). The wife subsequently filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. She denied all allegations and claimed that her husband abandoned her without justifiable cause and that she had always been willing to reconcile and resume cohabitation, but her husband refused to continue the marriage on being influenced by his parents.
In a common judgment, the Family Court granted divorce, holding that the wife’s conduct amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. Consequently, the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. The Family Court observed that the filing of multiple legal cases, including over 45 FIRs, was not merely an exercise of legal rights but a deliberate attempt to harass and intimidate the husband and his family.
Analysis and Decision
Regarding the wife’s contention that the filing of multiple cases did not amount to mental cruelty, as it is her legitimate right to seek legal remedies, the Court relied on K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa reported in [2013] 2 S.C.R. 126, wherein, the wife had filed several complaints and cases against the husband, the Court held that the filing of repeated false complaints and cases amounted to causing mental cruelty. In the instant case, the Court noted that the wife had filed over 45 FIRs along with numerous civil and criminal proceedings against the husband and his family. The Court stated that the principle- when the legal process is abused to cause constant harassment and mental agony, it crosses into the realm of mental cruelty, applied to the matter at hand.
“Such a high volume of cases reflects a pattern of vexatious litigation rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. The frequency and nature of these cases go beyond a reasonable exercise of legal rights and instead demonstrate a calculated effort to exert pressure and inflict mental agony upon the husband.”
Therefore, the contention that multiple cases alone could not amount to mental cruelty failed when viewed against the sheer extent of litigation initiated by the wife and the prolonged harassment faced by the husband and his family.
Noting that the husband submitted his resignation at TCS, mentioning that the wife’s persistent attempts to contact him at his workplace not only disrupted his professional responsibilities but also created an uncomfortable environment for his colleagues and staff members, the Court said that this resignation served as crucial evidence of the sustained harassment faced by the husband, extending beyond the confines of the matrimonial relationship and into his career and livelihood.
The Court also noted several instances of physical violence and abusive behaviour inflicted upon the husband and his family. Perusing the sworn testimonies, the Court noted that the wife hurled abusive words such as ‘bastard’, ‘chhoto loko’, etc. There were also instances of hitting the husband with an iron pot, the speaker of the music system. The husband’s parents were also forcibly ousted from their residence by the wife. The Court also took note of an incident where the wife arrived at the husband’s village with goons and asked about her husband’s whereabouts, and then attacked the mother-in-law. The matter escalated when the wife locked the elderly parents-in-law out of their house and forced them to spend the night at the Matha.
The Court also considered the Daily Report of The Royal Thai Police in Bangkok, Thailand, which revealed that the wife disturbed the husband at his workplace at Sino-Thai Company and threatened to commit suicide if he refused to meet her.
Considering the aforesaid, the Court stated that this pattern of conduct established through these incidents and the prolonged separation between the parties made reconciliation impossible. The Court said that the wife’s extreme and coercive behaviour was intended to emotionally manipulate and mentally distress the husband.
“When one partner resorts to repeated threats of self-harm or violence, the very foundation of this sacred bond is shattered, giving rise to a climate of fear and emotional torment. While an attempt to commit suicide is an act of desperation, a repeated threat to do so is a calculated act of manipulation, often deployed to exert psychological control over the other spouse.”
The Court relied on V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337, wherein, it was laid down that persistent mental stress, caused by threats and coercion, may amount to mental cruelty, justifying the dissolution of marriage.
“Repeated threats to commit suicide, or worse, to harm the spouse and their family members, transcend mere emotional outbursts, they represent a gross misuse of emotional vulnerability and a blatant form of psychological warfare. The effect of such behaviour is not just confined to the four walls of the matrimonial home but leaves a lasting scar on the mental health and emotional stability of the aggrieved spouse. When coupled with physical aggression and public humiliation, as seen in the present case, the cumulative effect is devastating, irreparably corroding the marital bond. Furthermore, such acts cannot be brushed aside as isolated emotional expressions.”
Some instances reflected the wife’s intent to sever the husband’s ties with his family and gain financial control over his assets. Thus, the Court upheld the Family Court’s decision. The Court held that the wife’s actions, viewed collectively, met the threshold of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The Court also upheld the permanent alimony of Rs. 63,00,000/- awarded by the Family Court.
[X v. X, Matrimonial Appeal No. 315 of 2023, Decided on: 19-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate
For the respondent: Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Senior Advocate; Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, Advocate
