The Orissa High Court recently granted divorce to a husband citing cruelty, as his wife filed multiple frivolous criminal cases against him, attempted to remove his elderly parents from their home, and repeatedly threatened suicide. The Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held that such behavior constituted psychological warfare and was a blatant misuse of emotional vulnerability.
Repeated threats to commit suicide, or worse, to harm the spouse and their family members, transcend mere emotional outbursts. They represent a gross misuse of emotional vulnerability and a blatant form of psychological warfare.
Read Also:- Orissa High Court: No Prosecution of Executive Director for Cheque Dishonour Without Arraigning Company
Case Background
The couple married on May 11, 2003, and lived together in various locations, including India, the USA, and Japan. Over time, their relationship deteriorated. The husband alleged that his wife pressured him to sever ties with his parents, sought financial control by demanding to be the sole nominee of his insurance policies, and constantly engaged in quarrels. He filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the grounds of mental cruelty.
In response, the wife filed an application under Section 9 of the Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court, Cuttack, granted the divorce, stating that her actions amounted to mental cruelty. Dissatisfied with the ruling, she appealed to the High Court.
Court's Observations on Mental Cruelty
The wife argued that the Family Court wrongly classified her legal actions as mental cruelty, emphasizing that filing cases is a legitimate legal right. However, the High Court rejected this argument, noting that while seeking legal remedies is justified, abuse of the legal system to harass a spouse constitutes cruelty.
In this case, the wife filed over 45 FIRs and multiple legal proceedings against the husband and his family. Such an excessive number of cases suggests vexatious litigation rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.
The court also highlighted that the husband's resignation from a prestigious job at TCS was directly attributed to his wife's continued interference in his work life, further proving the extent of her harassment.
Physical and Emotional Abuse
The judgment outlined multiple instances of physical violence and abuse by the wife. She reportedly attacked her husband with a music system speaker, causing injuries requiring medical attention. Additionally, she forcibly evicted her in-laws from their home, even locking them out overnight. Witness testimonies, including those from neighbors, corroborated these allegations.
Marriage is a partnership that requires compassion and patience. However, when one partner resorts to threats of self-harm or violence, the very foundation of this bond is shattered.
Psychological Manipulation and Legal Harassment
The court took serious note of the wife's repeated suicide threats, emphasizing that such actions are a form of emotional blackmail. The ruling stated that coercion through constant threats creates an atmosphere of fear, making it impossible for the aggrieved spouse to continue leading a peaceful life.
Further, the wife's contradictory legal actions—seeking conjugal rights while simultaneously initiating criminal proceedings—demonstrated a deliberate pattern of control and harassment. The court held that these factors made any possibility of reconciliation unfeasible.
The wife's conduct, far from reflecting a desire to rebuild the marriage, displayed a deliberate pattern of harassment and control, causing the husband severe mental agony and emotional exhaustion.
High Court Upholds Divorce and Alimony Decision
After reviewing the case, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision to grant divorce. It reiterated that a marriage cannot be sustained when one partner is subjected to relentless psychological torment and abuse.
The law cannot compel a person to endure a marriage that has become a source of suffering and torment. The respondent is entitled to peace and emotional relief, which can only be found in the dissolution of this broken bond.
While dissolving the marriage, the court also upheld the Family Court’s order of Rs. 63 lakh as permanent alimony for the wife, considering both parties’ financial and social status.
Case Title: MS v. RS
Case No: MATA Nos. 315 & 316 of 2023
Date of Judgment: March 19, 2025
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Senior Advocate along with Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, Advocate
