The Orissa High Court recently confirmed a divorce granted by the Family Court, Puri, citing mental cruelty by the wife as a valid ground under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice B.P. Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash on May 5, 2025, in the case Priyanka Nayak Pradhan v. Pranaya Pradhan Nayak.
The court observed that mocking a spouse’s physical infirmity and using derogatory language such as "Kempa" and "Nikhatu" amounts to mental cruelty.
Read Also:- Gujarat High Court Rejects Wife’s Plea for Conjugal Rights Citing Mental Cruelty and Public Humiliation
“A person is expected to give respect to another person in general and where it comes to the relationship of husband and wife, it is expected that the wife should support the husband despite his physical infirmity. This definitely in our opinion amounts to mental cruelty,” the Court emphasized.
Background of the Case
The parties were married on June 1, 2016, under Hindu customs. However, soon after the marriage, the wife allegedly began making humiliating remarks about the husband's physical disability. She first left the matrimonial home in September 2016, returned in January 2017 after reconciliation, but continued her behavior. She finally left in March 2018 and subsequently filed a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC against her husband and in-laws.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Reflecting Her Marital Standard of Living
The husband filed for divorce in April 2019. During the trial, the husband and a supporting witness testified to the wife’s repeated verbal abuse concerning his disability. Importantly, the wife did not provide any evidence to rebut these claims, despite cross-examining the witnesses.
Court’s Findings
The High Court affirmed the Family Court’s findings that the wife’s behavior amounted to mental cruelty. It noted the following:
“Mental cruelty includes that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it impossible to continue living together,” quoting from the Supreme Court judgment in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat.
The Bench also referred to Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, highlighting that mental cruelty must be assessed based on the unique facts of each case, social context, and the nature of the parties’ relationship.
“The wife’s repeated remarks targeting the husband's deformity clearly showed a lack of respect and disregard, which deeply affected the husband’s mental peace.”
The Court concluded that such conduct warranted the grant of divorce and upheld the lower court’s decision.
While the wife also contested the lack of permanent alimony and the return of her streedhan, the Court left those matters open. It noted the absence of material evidence regarding the financial status of both parties, and thus granted liberty to the wife to pursue those issues before the Family Court.
Case Title: X v. Y
Case No.: MATA No. 264 of 2023
