Read the judgment copy : SSSK v. SSAP
Case Name: Sadasivuni Siva Santosh Kumar v. Smt. Sadasivuni Anusha Patnaik
Case Number: MATA No. 73 of 2024
Date: Thursday, First of October, Two Thousand and Twenty-Six
Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
Quorum: Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash
FACTS
The Appellant-Husband and the Respondent-Wife were married on 20.10.2021 according to Hindu rites and customs. Subsequently, the parties developed differences and the Respondent left the matrimonial home in June 2023 and went to Rayagada along with her parents. The Respondent instituted a petition before the Family Court, Rayagada, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act). The Appellant contested the proceedings instituted under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, allowed the proceedings in part and dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty. It held that the Respondent had established the allegations of physical and mental cruelty along with economic exploitation against the Appellant and concluded that their matrimonial relationship had broken down beyond repair. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant preferred to appeal before the High Court of Orissa u/s 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 r/w Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Whether the conduct of the Appellant-Husband, as established from the evidence, amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Provides for restitution of conjugal rights where a spouse has withdrawn from the society of the other without reasonable excuse.
- Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Permits dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce where the other party has, after solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.
- Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 r/w Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984- Provides for appeals from decrees and judgments of the Family Court.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT- The Appellant argued that the Family Court erred in dissolving the marriage as the allegations were neither established by cogent evidence nor sufficient to constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia). It was contended that the Respondent was not subjected to any physical or mental cruelty and the allegations made against him were denied in the counter and in the evidence. It was further argued that Appellant’s institution of proceedings u/s 9 of the Act reflected his intention to continue the matrimonial relationship.
RESPONDENT– The Respondent supported the impugned judgment and argued that she had specifically pleaded acts of physical and mental cruelty and had led evidence in support. It was contended that the Appellant’s cumulative conduct caused her sustained mental agony and rendered continuation of the marriage impossible, and that the Family Court rightly concluded that cruelty was established on appreciation of the evidence. Hence, it was submitted that no interference with the impugned judgment was warranted.
ANALYSIS
The Court observed that mental cruelty cannot be determined by isolating a specific incident instead, the conduct complained of must be assessed in the context of the relationship as a whole and its cumulative effect on the spouse alleging cruelty. It was noted that ordinary wear and tear of married life, trivial irritations and occasional quarrels cannot furnish a ground for dissolution of marriage. Relying on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, and V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337, the Court reiterated that the test is whether the conduct is of such a nature that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to live with the other. The Court clarified that an allegation of cruelty in a matrimonial dispute is not required to be examined with the same degree of proof as would be required in a criminal proceeding. Relying on A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22, it held that mental cruelty cannot always be deduced with direct proof and the effect of the conduct upon the mind of the spouse has to be assessed while considering circumstances, status, background of the parties and the nature of the relationship.
The Court found that some of Respondent’s allegations, viewed separately, might invite scrutiny as to independent corroboration, but taken together they disclosed the nature of the matrimonial environment. It was therefore held that the allegations of physical assault against the Respondent, the assault of Respondent’s father, and other evidence presented before the Court led to the culmination of an already deteriorated matrimonial relationship which resulted in the final separation in June 2023. Additionally, it was stipulated that the Appellant’s messages expressing regret and assuring that such conduct would not recur could not be treated as an admission of every allegation, but were not irrelevant when read with the other evidence.
On the settlement attempt of 20.03.2026, the Court held that the mutual willingness to end the marriage is not a substitute for statutory requirement of cruelty and cannot be treated a decree by mutual consent, but is a relevant circumstance in assessing the present state of the relationship.
JUDGEMENT
The Orissa High Court held that the Family Court was justified in concluding that the Respondent-Wife had established cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. Consequently, the Appeal was dismissed.
Citing K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 126, the Court noted that irretrievable breakdown of marriage alone cannot independently ground a divorce but is a weighty circumstance in examining the question of cruelty.
CONCLUSION
The Court reaffirmed that mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) must be assessed on the cumulative effect of the conduct over the entire matrimonial relationship.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY- T. R. AISIRI RAO
