The Orissa High Court has upheld a family court decree dissolving a marriage on the ground of cruelty, observing that preserving the legal status of a marriage serves little purpose when mutual respect, trust and companionship have substantially disappeared from the relationship.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash dismissed an appeal filed by the husband against the January 27, 2024 order of the family court granting divorce to his wife.
The High Court said that although courts ordinarily seek to preserve the sanctity of marriage, that objective cannot be achieved merely by keeping the formal legal relationship intact when its substantive foundation has eroded.
The bench observed that mutual respect, trust, companionship and willingness to make reasonable adjustments form the core of matrimonial life. Where these elements are progressively lost and the relationship becomes a continuing source of mental pain and anguish, the court said it cannot ignore the actual state of the marriage merely because the deterioration does not fit into one isolated category of conduct.
Marriage And Subsequent Disputes
The couple married on October 20, 2021. According to the husband, they initially lived in Visakhapatnam before moving to Hyderabad, where both worked in the Information Technology sector.
Differences subsequently arose between them. The wife left the matrimonial home in June 2023 and went to Rayagada with her parents. She later approached the family court seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty.
The family court allowed her plea and dissolved the marriage on January 27, 2024, prompting the husband to challenge the decree before the High Court.
Husband Challenged Finding Of Cruelty
Advocate S K Dwivedy, appearing for the husband, argued that the family court had wrongly concluded that cruelty had been established.
He submitted that the wife’s allegations were neither supported by sufficient evidence nor serious enough to amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The husband also relied on the fact that he had initiated proceedings seeking resumption of the matrimonial relationship, contending that this demonstrated his intention to continue the marriage.
Advocate T K Mishra, appearing for the wife, argued that she had specifically described incidents of physical and mental cruelty and had supported those allegations with evidence.
He submitted that the husband’s conduct had caused her mental agony and made continuation of the matrimonial relationship impossible.
Cruelty Must Be Assessed From Overall Conduct
The High Court said that ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life, minor irritations, occasional quarrels or routine differences cannot by themselves justify dissolution of a marriage.
The conduct complained of, the bench said, must be of such nature and degree that it creates a reasonable apprehension that the spouses cannot be expected to continue living together.
The court also noted that mental cruelty may not always be capable of direct proof. Its effect must instead be assessed in the context of the parties’ circumstances, status, background and the nature of their relationship.
Examining the wife’s evidence as a whole, the bench found that the allegations could not be treated as merely a stray quarrel or an isolated matrimonial disagreement.
The allegations of physical assault and the specific incidents narrated by the wife, according to the court, reflected a continuing course of discord between the parties.
The court further observed that the eventual separation was not an isolated occurrence but the culmination of an already deteriorating matrimonial relationship.
According to the bench, the evidence showed more than a mere difference in perception between two spouses. It reflected a relationship in which the essential element of mutual confidence had substantially eroded.
Attempt At Reconciliation Also Failed
The High Court also took note of the interaction between the parties when they were brought face to face before the court on March 20.
The relationship could not be restored even at that stage, and both parties expressed a desire to bring the marital tie to an end.
The bench, however, clarified that the decree of divorce was not being sustained merely because the parties were living separately or wished to end the marriage.
It said the basis of the decree remained the cruelty established from the evidence on record.
Finding no reason to interfere with the family court’s decision, the High Court held that the matrimonial relationship had lost its essential character and that requiring the wife to resume such a relationship would be unrealistic.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the decree of divorce was upheld.
