SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High 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