Orissa High Court upholds divorce to man whose wife filed 45 FIRs against him, his family

The Orissa High Court recently dismissed a woman’s appeal against the grant of divorce in her husband’s favour after taking note of the fact that she had filed 45 criminal cases against the husband and his family members..The Division Bench of Justice BP Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed that such high volume of cases reflected a pattern of vexatious litigation rather than genuine pursuit of justice.“The frequency and nature of these cases go beyond a reasonable exercise of legal rights and instead demonstrate a calculated effort to exert pressure and inflict mental agony upon the Respondent. Therefore, the contention that multiple cases alone cannot amount to mental cruelty fails when viewed against the sheer extent of litigation initiated by the Appellant and the prolonged harassment faced by the Respondent and his family,” the Court observed..The couple had married in 2003 in Cuttack. Their marriage soon faced problems, with the husband alleging that she pressured him to sever ties with his parents, demanded financial control by insisting on being the sole nominee in his insurance policies and frequently engaged in quarrels.The husband filed for divorce in 2009. In 2023, a family court granted divorce to the husband subject to payment of ₹63 lakh towards permanent alimony. The wife then moved the High Court..The Court rejected her argument that filing of multiple cases cannot amount to mental cruelty. While mere filing of cases may not always constitute cruelty, when the legal process is abused to cause constant harassment and mental agony, it crosses into the realm of mental cruelty, the Bench said.Further, the Court found various instances of physical violence and abusive behaviour on the part of the wife towards the husband and his family. It said that when one partner resorts to repeated threats of self-harm or violence, the very foundation of marriage is shattered, giving rise to a climate of fear and emotional torment..While an attempt to commit suicide is an act of desperation, a repeated threat to do so is a calculated act of manipulation, often deployed to exert psychological control over the other spouse, it added.“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. The effect of such behaviour is not just confined to the four walls of the matrimonial home but leaves a lasting scar on the mental health and emotional stability of the aggrieved spouse. When coupled with physical aggression and public humiliation, as seen in the present case, the cumulative effect is devastating, irreparably corroding the marital bond. Furthermore, such acts cannot be brushed aside as isolated emotional expressions. In a relationship as intimate as marriage, repeated threats become tools of coercion, forcing the other spouse to remain trapped in a state of perpetual anxiety and emotional paralysis,” the Court said.It further observed that the evidence on records paints a heart-wrenching picture of a marriage that once held promise but gradually descended into a cycle of emotional turmoil, intimidation and relentless litigation.“From physical assaults and verbal abuse to repeated acts of financial control and emotional blackmail, the Respondent was subjected to a state of perpetual distress, where fear and anxiety overshadowed any hope of marital peace,” it added..In conclusion, the Court said that the law cannot compel a person to endure a marriage that has become a source of suffering and torment. The man is entitled to the peace and emotional relief that can only be found in the dissolution of this broken bond, it stressed, while dismissing the wife's appealAdvocate AP Bose represented the appellant-wife.Senior Advocate Bibekananda Bhuyan and advocate SS Bhuyan represented the respondent-husband.[Read Judgment]