Nirupama Mohapatra vs Sabyasachi Mohapatra

S.K. Sahoo, J.

"Every healthy marriage is composed of walls and windows. The windows are the aspects of your relationship that are open to the world- that is, the necessary gaps through which you interact with family and friends; the walls are the barriers of trust behind which you guard the most intimate secrets of your marriage."

- Elizabeth Gilbert

This case presents an atypical example of unhealthy marriage in which walls and windows were shattered to pieces, high expectations crumbled leading to disappointment and then started blame-game. Ray of hope perished. Destiny carried the couple in different directions and then they crossed the turning point of no return.

An appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife Nirupama Mohapatra under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 30.07.2013 and decree dated 05.08.2013 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri passed in Civil Proceeding No. 69 of 2010 in allowing the petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent-husband Sabyasachi Mohapatra with a prayer for restitution of conjugal right and alternatively for dissolution of marriage, if restitution of conjugal right is not substantiated.

The case of the respondent-husband borne out from the plaint is that he is the only son of his parents and his marriage was solemnised on 13.12.2006 with the appellant-wife as per caste and custom prevailing in Brahmin community without any demand of dowry. Though both of them lead a happy conjugal life for few days but thereafter the appellant-wife persistently pressurised the respondent-husband to live separately from the joint family. The respondent-husband tried his level best to change the mind of the appellant-wife but she being misguided by her parents started misbehaving to the elder members of her in-laws family and almost turned the happy home of the respondent-husband into a pandemonium house. It is the further case of the respondent-husband that he took the appellant-wife to his service place for a change of her mind along with his parents who were ailing. The appellant-wife expressed her displeasure regarding stay of her ailing parents-in-laws in her company for which the situation became very tense and it lead to untold miseries, plight and sorrow feeling for the appellant-husband. On 9.3.2007 the married sister and brother of appellant-wife reached at the service place of the respondent-husband and in absence of the respondent-husband, they abused his ailing parents and on the very next day the appellant-wife was taken to her paternal house situated at Puri. The respondent-husband brought the appellant-wife back to his service place on 10.4.2007 where she was treated in Hinjilikatu Government Hospital and then she was taken to Berhampur Medical College on 15.4.2007 as she was found to be pregnant. The respondent-husband was very much happy coming to know about the pregnancy of the appellant-wife but surprisingly the appellant-wife insisted to terminate her pregnancy as her beauty would be damaged by giving birth to a child. The appellant-wife did not attend her father-in-law when he was hospitalised and ultimately she withdrew herself from the society of her husband and left with all her belongings including gold ornaments. The respondent-husband wrote two letters to the Odisha State Commission for Women expressing his discontentment but the appellant-wife stoutly denied joining with the society of her husband.

Finding no way out, the respondent-husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights with alternative prayer to dissolve the marriage between the parties in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in MAT Case No. 432 of 2007 which was transferred to Judge, Family Court, Puri and it was registered as Civil Proceeding No. 69 of 2010.

The appellant-wife on being noticed appeared in the case and filed her written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of the appellant-wife that her father-in-law took Rs. 1,00,000/- from her father few days prior to marriage for purchasing articles like Motor Cycle, Fridge, TV set, Washing Machine etc. and after marriage, her parents-in-law and other elderly members of her in-laws family took away her golden ornaments given by her parents with false assurance to keep the same in a Bank locker at the service place of the respondent-husband. In spite of the repeated request of the appellant-wife to give a gold chain for her daily use, the same was not complied with by her in-laws. After purchasing TV set, Fridge, Washing machine and other articles from out of Rs. 1 lakh given by the father of the appellant-wife, the balance amount was retained by her father-in-law towards the marriage expenses. The respondent-husband demanded further cash of Rs. 40,000/- as additional dowry for purchasing computer and TV recording machine and the parents, elder sister and uncle of the respondent-husband also endorsed such unlawful demand. The articles such as furniture, clothes, utensils and other articles which were brought by the brother of appellant-wife to her in-laws house on the next day of marriage was heavily criticised by the family members of the respondent-husband. The in-laws of the appellant-wife also misbehaved with her in connection with demand of further amount of Rs. 40,000/-. The father of the appellant-wife was insulted and misbehaved by the family members of the respondent-husband. It is the case of the appellant-wife that though she was doing all the household works but she was treated by her in-laws like a maid servant. She was not provided with proper food and clothing. At the time of her pregnancy, she was not even provided with medicines for which day by day she became very weak. On 29.4.2007 the respondent-husband gave a kick blow on the belly of the appellant-wife for which she felt severe pain and discomfort. On 30.4.2007 her father brought her to Puri for her treatment with the permission of her parents-in-law. It is the further case of the appellant-wife that the respondent-husband, in order to protect himself and his family members from future legal complicacy and apprehending that their misdeeds would be exposed, made application to Odisha State Commission for Women making all kinds of false and baseless allegations.

During pendency of the case before the Judge, Family Court, Puri, the matter was referred for conciliation but it failed.

The learned trial Judge framed as many as five issues. The two vital issues were whether the respondent-husband was entitled to relief under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant-wife and whether the alternative claim made by the respondent-husband for divorce can be allowed?

During course of trial, the respondent-husband examined two witnesses including himself as P.W.1 and his father Brajabandhu Mohapatra was examined as P.W.2.

Similarly from her side, the appellant-wife examined herself as R.W.1.

From the side of the respondent-husband, some documents were proved. Ext. 1 is the evidence affidavit, Ext. 2 is the certified copy of Mahila Commissioner Report, Ext. 3 is the station diary entry No. 1/1 of Pattapur P.S. Ext. 3/a is the salary certificate, Ext. 4 is the invoice memo, Ext. 5 to Ext. 5 (k) at the prescriptions and bills, Ext. 6 is the certified copy of the bail order in B.A. 1179 of 2007, Ext. 7 is the diary maintained by appellant-wife and Ext. 8 is the evidence affidavit of P.W.2 Brajabandhu Mohapatra.

Similarly from the side of the appellant-wife, some documents were proved. Ext. A is the signature of the respondent-husband, Ext. B is the ornament list and Ext. C is the evidence affidavit of the appellant-wife.

The learned trial Judge analysing the evidence on record, came to hold that the appellant-wife had withdrawn from the society of her in-laws without reasonable excuse for which the petition for restitution of conjugal right filed by the respondent-husband should be allowed. However, the learned trial Judge further held that the alternative prayer made by the respondent-husband for divorce cannot be allowed and accordingly the civil proceeding was decreed on contest and the appellant-wife was directed to join with the respondent-husband within one month from the date of decree.

The matter having been challenged in matrimonial appeal, during pendency of the appeal, several attempts were made for amicable settlement between the parties, but unfortunately it did not yield any result and ultimately on 27.3.2015 we came to hold that reconciliation of the parties was not possible. On that day we permitted the parties to deliberate among them regarding the settlement of the lis and terms and conditions of their choice including for payment of permanent alimony. On the next date i.e., on 8.4.2015, the respondent-husband offered Rs. 4 lakhs towards permanent alimony to the appellant-wife. On that day, the appellant-wife stated before us that all her gold ornaments and the ornaments which were presented to the respondent-husband at the time of marriage were with the respondent. The respondent sought for time to verify about the same and accordingly we deferred the matter to 5.5.2015. On that day, the parties agreed for exchanging the ornaments and accordingly the matter was posted to 7.5.2015.

On 7.5.2015 both the spouses with their respective counsels were present and they filed joint affidavits which were taken on record. In the joint affidavit filed by the parties, it is indicated that respondent-husband deposited a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four lakhs) in the SBI Account of the appellant-wife on 6.5.2015 towards permanent alimony. The gold ornaments receipt signed by the appellant-wife on dated 5.5.2015 as per the gold ornament list was also annexed to the joint affidavit. It is indicated in the joint application filed by the spouses in the form of Misc. Case No. 141 of 2015 filed on 7.5.2015 in Court that during pendency of the matrimonial appeal, the parties reached an out of Court settlement wherein they have mutually agreed for dissolution of marriage between them and that the appellant-wife shall have no further claim against the respondent-husband and vice versa in future and the parties agreed to bring an end to all the pending cases between them and to take necessary steps for withdrawal of such cases. The affidavits filed by the parties in Court on dated 7.5.2015 will form the part of the record. The lis between the parties was set at rest by exchange of ornaments as well as payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four lakhs) by the respondent-husband to the appellant-wife. The appellant-wife in the open court admitted about the receipt of the amount of permanent alimony.

In view of the full and final settlement between the parties, since both the parties are not interested to continue their conjugal life and the marriage between the parties has been rendered a complete deadwood and reconciliation is not possible, accepting the pragmatic reality of life and taking a decision which would ultimately be conducive in the interest of both the parties, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Judge, Family Court, Puri and direct that in the extra-ordinary facts and circumstances of the case, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent stands dissolved according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the divorce shall take effect from today. In terms of the compromise, all the proceedings instituted by either party in any Court or before any authority shall be withdrawn/closed.

Before parting we would quote,

"Marriage isn''t a love affair. It isn''t even a honeymoon. It''s a job. A long hard job, at which both partners have to work, harder than they''ve worked at anything in their lives before. If it''s a good marriage, it changes, it evolves, but it does on getting better........ But a bad marriage can dissolve in a welter of resentment and acrimony........ And it''s never one person''s fault. It''s the sum total of a thousand irritations, disagreements, idiotic details that in a sound alliance would simply be disregarded, or forgotten in the healing act of making love. Divorce isn''t a cure, it''s a surgical operation, even if there are no children to consider."

- Rosamunde Pilcher, Wild Mountain Thyme

The matrimonial appeal is accordingly disposed of. We direct the parties to bear their own costs.

Vinod Prasad, J.

I agree.