Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta 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

Similar News