IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

Uncontested Evidence Leads to Divorce: Orissa High Court, Dissolving Marriage and Awarding Alimony

15 September 2024 8:55 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


Orissa High Court delivered a significant judgment in the case of Laxmi Narayan Singh v. Sunitaprava Jenamani @ Singh (MATA No. 119 of 2022). The Division Bench, comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice M.S. Sahoo, reversed the Family Court's earlier decision and granted a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The court also directed the appellant-husband to pay ₹5 lakh as permanent alimony to the respondent-wife.

Laxmi Narayan Singh, the appellant, had filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He stated that the couple had an initially happy married life, and the respondent-wife conceived and gave birth to their son on March 8, 2016. He claimed that after the birth, the respondent insisted on living with her parents, refusing his proposal to stay in a rented house away from his family. He alleged that the respondent deserted him on February 25, 2017, without his consent. The respondent-wife, in her objection, accused the appellant and his family of demanding money and physically assaulting her. She admitted to leaving the matrimonial home on February 25, 2017, with the minor child and filed a police complaint shortly afterward.

The Family Court had previously dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant on May 11, 2022, and also dismissed the respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights on February 19, 2022.

The main legal issues were whether the respondent-wife's actions amounted to cruelty and desertion under matrimonial laws and whether the appellant-husband was entitled to a decree of divorce on these grounds.

Cruelty and Desertion: The court noted that the appellant-husband claimed the marriage was initially happy but deteriorated after the birth of their child when the respondent demanded to live with her parents. The court observed that the respondent admitted leaving the matrimonial home and lodging police complaints against the appellant, resulting in several police cases. During the trial, the respondent and her father simply denied the suggestion that she left the matrimonial home without providing a detailed explanation. The court found this omission significant, indicating that the respondent had indeed left the matrimonial home without just cause.

Appellant's Financial Status: The appellant provided evidence of his financial status, including a certificate from Delhi Public School Synergy Dhenkanal, stating his net monthly salary as ₹7642. The court noted the appellant's modest income and considered this while determining the quantum of permanent alimony. The respondent was approximately 34 years old and a graduate, suggesting her potential for financial independence.

The Orissa High Court reversed the Family Court's judgment, accepting the appellant's grounds for divorce. The bench ruled that the evidence presented by the appellant regarding cruelty and desertion was unchallenged and unrefuted by the respondent. The court dissolved the marriage solemnized on March 9, 2015, by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The court also ordered the appellant to pay permanent alimony of ₹5 lakh to the respondent. Justice Arindam Sinha, while delivering the judgment, stated, "In taking approximately a percentage thereof on an annual basis, we direct permanent alimony at ₹500000/-." The alimony is to be deposited in the Family Court within two months​.

The Orissa High Court's decision highlights the importance of unchallenged evidence in matrimonial disputes. By granting divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, the court emphasized that failure to refute allegations effectively can lead to a decree of divorce. The court's order for permanent alimony reflects a balanced approach, considering the appellant's financial status and the respondent's potential for independence.

Date of Decision: September 12, 2024

Laxmi Narayan Singh v. Sunitaprava Jenamani @ Singh

Latest Legal News