The Orissa High Court upheld the divorce granted to Pranaya Pradhan Nayak, stating, “Wife should support & give respect to husband despite his infirmity,” while dismissing Priyanka Nayak Pradhan’s appeal.
Cuttack: The Orissa High Court upheld the divorce granted to Pranaya Pradhan Nayak by the Family Court of Puri, dismissing the appeal filed by Priyanka Nayak Pradhan.
The judgment, delivered on May 5, 2025, was given by a Division Bench consisting of Justice B.P. Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash.
The couple married on June 1, 2016, following Hindu traditions, but their relationship quickly deteriorated. The husband reported that his wife frequently humiliated him due to his physical disability, using derogatory terms such as “Kempa, Nikhatu,” which caused him emotional distress.
These allegations were not contested or clarified by the wife during cross-examination.
After their wedding, the wife left the matrimonial home on September 15, 2016, returning on January 5, 2017, following discussions between their families.
However, according to the husband’s testimony, she continued to insult him and left the house again on March 25, 2018. Subsequently, she filed a criminal case against him and his family under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and other charges.
The husband filed for divorce on 3rd April 2019 before the Family Court at Puri. In that case, the husband gave his statement as P.W.1 and one more witness (P.W.2) supported his claims. The wife, however, did not produce any evidence on her side though she cross-examined both witnesses.
The Family Court, after considering the evidence, granted divorce on 10th July 2023 in favour of the husband. It held that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty and therefore the marriage should be dissolved.
However, no permanent alimony was granted in that judgment. Challenging this decision, the wife filed an appeal before the High Court.
While hearing the appeal, the High Court noted that the wife did not produce any evidence to counter the serious allegations made against her. The court said that the wife’s remarks like “Kempa, Nikhatu” towards her husband’s disability were “un-rebutted”.
It observed that such behaviour clearly showed a lack of respect and empathy from the wife towards her husband’s physical condition.
The court explained that cruelty also includes mental cruelty. In support of this, the judges quoted from the landmark Supreme Court judgment in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994), where it was held:
“Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other.”
The court continued quoting the same judgment,
“It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner.”
The judges also referred to the Supreme Court’s detailed observations on mental cruelty in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), and said:
“There cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of ‘mental cruelty’ within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered.”
They court further remarked,
“What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background…”
The court emphasised,
“What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa.”
It further elaborated,
“The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances…”
Among many points from the Samar Ghosh case, the court pointed out some relevant examples, including,
“Acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. Frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behavior of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse… Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair.”
After considering these legal principles and the evidence on record, the High Court concluded that the wife’s attitude towards her physically disabled husband clearly amounted to mental cruelty.
The judgment observed,
“The Wife making such statements against the Husband towards his physical infirmity definitely is causing mental pain.”
The court remarked that,
“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 the Wife should support the Husband despite his physical infirmity, if any.”
It further added,
“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.”
Thus, the High Court held that the condition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act was satisfied and the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court was valid.
However, regarding the wife’s prayer for permanent alimony and return of Streedhan, the High Court made it clear that she could raise these issues before the Family Court.
The judges said,
“At this stage, with regard to grant of permanent alimony and return of Streedhan properties, as claimed by the Appellant-Wife, 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.”
The court clarified,
“There is no material produced on record with regard to income of the Husband or the Wife and in absence of any material, we are unable to decide the question of permanent alimony here.”
Finally, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal and upheld the divorce between the couple.
The judgment was signed by Justice B.P. Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, and authenticated by Basanta Kumar Barik, Secretary, High Court of Orissa.
Case Details: MATA No. 264 of 2023
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
