Signing you in

Listen 00:00 0.5x 0.75x 1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x AI Narration This audio is AI generated.

The Orissa High Court has upheld a divorce decree granted to a husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion, citing serious allegations and counter-allegations of illicit relationships, physical assault and abusive conduct between the couple. The court doubled the permanent alimony awarded to the unemployed wife from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 6 lakh, taking into account her lack of independent income and the husband’s financial circumstances.

A bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Das was dealing with the wife’s plea challenging the family court order and seeking an enhancement in permanent alimony.

“The serious allegations and counter-allegations exchanged between the parties, including those concerning illicit relationships, physical assault, abusive conduct, and the appellant’s (wife’s) alleged disinclination to have a child, further reflect the extent of the matrimonial discord,” the court said on October 16.

The court noted that the couple had been living separately since December 31, 2022, and attempts at reconciliation had failed. The wife’s evidence indicated that she was unwilling to resume cohabitation despite efforts to restore the relationship.

The case concerns a matrimonial dispute between a couple who married in February 2021, according to Hindu rites and customs. The husband filed a divorce petition before the family court alleging mental cruelty and desertion by his wife. Appearing for the husband, advocate A K Behera submitted that shortly after the marriage, the wife refused to maintain normal conjugal relations, behaved abusively, and eventually withdrew from the matrimonial relationship despite efforts at reconciliation.

The wife, through her counsel, T Panigarhi, argued that she had been ill-treated and subjected to mental cruelty by her husband. She also accused him of maintaining an inappropriate relationship with the wife of his younger brother and having contacts with other women.

The family court, in its 2025 judgment, accepted the husband’s case and dissolved the marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion. It awarded the wife Rs 3 lakh as permanent alimony.

Challenging the decision, the wife approached the high court, arguing that the family court had not properly assessed the evidence and that the alimony awarded was inadequate, considering her circumstances and her husband’s earning capacity. The husband opposed the appeal, maintaining that the divorce decree was supported by the evidence on record.

The court observed that mental cruelty cannot be determined by applying a uniform standard. Courts must consider the spouses’ behaviour, social and economic circumstances, temperaments and the overall dynamics of their relationship.

It said the cumulative effect of the alleged conduct must be assessed to determine whether continuing the matrimonial relationship could reasonably be expected. An allegation against a spouse, if unsubstantiated, cannot by itself establish cruelty.

“The serious allegations and counter-allegations exchanged between the parties, including those concerning illicit relationships, physical assault, abusive conduct and the appellant’s alleged disinclination to have a child, further reflect the extent of the matrimonial discord,” the order observed.

It clarified that these allegations could not be treated as established facts, but their significance had to be assessed alongside the evidence, prolonged separation and failed reconciliation.

Assessing the evidence and circumstances cumulatively, the court concluded that the relationship had deteriorated beyond the stage of ordinary matrimonial disagreement. It found no legal infirmity in the family court’s decision to dissolve the marriage on grounds of mental cruelty.

On permanent alimony, the court considered the wife’s lack of independent income, the husband’s monthly salary of Rs 17,200, his personal loan liabilities, and restrictions on private tuition. It held that the Rs 3 lakh awarded by the family court required enhancement to ensure a just and reasonable amount.