The Orissa High Court has held that merely saving the legal form of marriage is meaningless and does not uphold the sanctity of marriage when the conjugal relationship between a married couple has been substantially eroded. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 115]

While affirming the order of a Family Court granting divorce to a couple, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash remarked–

“Marriage undoubtedly carries a sanctity which the Court must ordinarily endeavour to preserve. But the sanctity of marriage is not served by preserving only the legal form of the relationship when the substantive foundation of that relationship has been substantially eroded. Mutual respect, trust, companionship and a willingness to make reasonable adjustments are not peripheral attributes of matrimonial life; they constitute its very foundation.”

The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife, both of whom are IT professionals, got married as per Hindu rituals in October 2021. After residing together for over a year at Vishakhapatnam and Hyderabad, the wife allegedly left the matrimonial home and filed an application before the Family Court, Rayagada seeking divorce.

The Family Court, upon thorough assessment of evidence, deemed it apposite to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty meted out to the respondent-wife by the appellant-husband. Against such order, the appellant preferred this matrimonial appeal.

It was the contention of the appellant that the Family Court erred in arriving at the conclusion that cruelty has been meted out against the wife. It was further taken to the knowledge of the Court that the husband had in fact filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, upon desertion by the wife.

The Court noted the submissions of the wife who alleged to have been repeatedly assaulted by the husband during night hours, at times locked inside a room despite her knocking for the door to be opened, and subjected to demands for money. She also alleged to have been slapped by the appellant publicly on the occasion of their marriage anniversary.

It further came to the notice of the Court that the father of the wife was humiliated and assaulted when he paid a visit to the house of the appellant. Further, it was alleged that relatives were thereafter called and the respondent along with her father were asked to leave the house on the allegation that the expectations of the appellant's family had not been fulfilled. These circumstances purportedly made her feel unsafe and compelled her to leave for Rayagada.

The Court, speaking through Justice Dash, relied upon Shri Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 353, wherein the Apex Court held that in matrimonial proceedings, it may not always be possible to pinpoint a particular act of cruelty and that the Court must examine the entire matrimonial relationship, and an irretrievably broken marriage may be dissolved on the ground of 'cruelty'. Accordingly, it held observed–

“The cumulative assessment assumes further importance because the Respondent-Wife did not merely leave the matrimonial home following an ordinary disagreement. Her evidence is that she left in circumstances in which she felt unsafe and humiliated, after the events at Hyderabad, and that subsequent efforts made by her family for reconciliation did not restore the relationship. The evidence of the parties, therefore, reveals not merely a difference in perception between two spouses, but a relationship in which the essential element of mutual confidence had substantially eroded.”

The Bench also took into account the evidence of the witnesses appearing in support of the husband, which also corroborated the fact that the departure of the wife preceded by a serious marital dispute which required a meeting of relatives. Further, the messages transmitted between the couple also pointed towards the strained relationship. Importantly, the couple, while appearing before the Court in-person, expressed the desire to part ways.

Hence, on a cumulative assessment, the Court opined–

“…we find that the learned Family Court was justified in concluding that the Respondent-Wife had established cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The finding is founded not merely upon the fact of separation or upon the subsequent breakdown of the relationship, but upon the cumulative effect of the conduct established from the evidence and the circumstances in which the matrimonial relationship deteriorated.”

Resultantly, the impugned judgment and decree of divorce were upheld.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. S.K. Dwivedy, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate