The Orissa High Court has upheld a decree of divorce granted to a physically disabled man on the ground of mental cruelty, observing that repeated derogatory remarks by the wife, such as calling her husband “Kempa” and “Nikhatu”, were sufficient to constitute mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.P. Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash delivered the judgment on May 5, 2025, in MATA No. 264 of 2023, arising from a judgment passed by the Family Court, Puri, in C.P. No. 123 of 2019 on July 10, 2023.
Background
The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 1 June 2016 according to Hindu rites. The husband filed for divorce on 3 April 2019, alleging mental cruelty. According to him, the wife persistently mocked his physical disability and used terms like “Kempa” (cripple) and “Nikhatu” (useless), leading to a toxic and painful marital environment.
The wife left the matrimonial home on 15 September 2016, returned briefly on 5 January 2017 after reconciliation efforts, and permanently left on 25 March 2018. She later initiated a criminal case against the husband and his family under Section 498-A IPC and other provisions.
Proceedings and Evidence
In the Family Court, the husband examined two witnesses, including himself. The wife cross-examined them but did not lead any evidence or produce witnesses in her defence.
Both P.W.1 (the husband) and P.W.2 supported the claim that the wife repeatedly insulted the husband over his physical disability. The High Court noted that these statements went unrebutted by the wife.
Court’s Analysis
Referring to precedents including V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat [(1994) 1 SCC 337] and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511], the High Court reiterated that mental cruelty includes conduct that causes deep mental pain, agony, or suffering, making it impossible for one spouse to continue living with the other.
The Court stated:
“The Wife making such statements against the Husband towards his physical infirmity definitely is causing mental pain. Such behaviour by the Wife towards the Husband discloses her thought and respect to the Husband. […] This definitely in our opinion amounts to mental cruelty leading to draw an inference against the Wife that she treated her Husband with cruelty owing to his physical deformity.”
The Court concluded that the evidence met the threshold for mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and affirmed the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court.
Permanent Alimony and Streedhan
Regarding the wife’s prayer for permanent alimony and return of streedhan property, the High Court declined to decide the issue, citing lack of material evidence on the financial status of the parties. It observed:
“With regard to grant of permanent alimony and return of Streedhan properties, as claimed by the Appellant-Wife, [they] are left open to her to be agitated before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri in terms of Sections 25 & 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
Final Decision
The appeal filed by the wife was dismissed, and the divorce decree was confirmed.
