Orissa High Court
Tanya Mishra vs Satya Shankar Panda .... Opposite ... on 3 May, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: B. P. Routray, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No. 272 of 2023
Tanya Mishra .... Appellant
Mr. Samir Ku. Mishra,
Senior Advocate
-versus-
Satya Shankar Panda .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. R. Pattnaik,
Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 03.05.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.:
1. By means of this appeal, the Appellant has challenged the judgment dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, in C.P. No. 959/2018, whereby the petition filed by the Appellant under Sections 12(1)(a) and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "HMA"), seeking a decree of nullity and/or dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, was dismissed.
2. The background facts of the case are that the marriage between the Appellant-Wife and the Respondent-Husband was solemnised on 30.01.2015 at Bhubaneswar as per Hindu customs. After marriage, the parties began cohabiting as husband and wife and undertook several domestic and international trips, including to MATA No. 272 of 2023 Page 1 of 14 Australia, Maldives, Goa, Mumbai, Vizag, Puri, Siridi, Coorg, and Mysore. However, the Appellant alleged that despite the apparent normalcy, the marriage was marred by emotional and mental cruelty inflicted by the Respondent and his family, including persistent dowry demands, humiliation, and psychological abuse. She further claimed that the marriage was never consummated owing to the Respondent's unwillingness or incapacity, and that she was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home on 11.01.2017, compelling her to return to her parental residence. Consequently, the Appellant sought for both annulment of the marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the HMA on the ground of non-consummation, and alternatively, dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) on the ground of cruelty in C.P. No.959 of 2018 before the Family Court, Bhubaneswar. The Respondent, subsequently, entered appearance and filed a written statement vehemently denying all allegations, asserting that the marriage was consummated, that the couple lived as husband and wife for several years, and that the allegations of cruelty and dowry were afterthoughts intended to mislead the court. He placed on record his evidence including joint travel records and photographs indicating shared domestic life well beyond the date the Appellant claimed to have left the matrimonial home.
After recording evidence from both sides, including the parties and their respective family members, the Family Court, by its judgment dated 12.12.2023, dismissed the petition, holding that the Appellant had failed to establish the allegations and that the suit lacked merit. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.
MATA No. 272 of 2023 Page 2 of 143. Mr. S. K. Mishra appearing on behalf of the Appellant, contends that the Family Court erred in dismissing her petition despite clear and consistent pleadings, supported by oral evidence, establishing that the marriage between the parties was never consummated due to the Respondent's impotency. The Appellant, along with her parents, deposed to this fact, and being the person directly affected, her testimony regarding non-consummation ought to have been given due weight. He argues that the medical evidence relied upon by the Respondent, including the testimony of a radiologist, and not an andrologist, was insufficient to establish potency, and no medical tests were conducted by a qualified expert in male sexual disorders. Mr. Mishra further asserts that she had been subjected to continuous mental cruelty, particularly on account of dowry demands made by the Respondent and his parents, including demands for luxury cars such as a BMW 7 Series, an XUV 500, and later a Toyota Fortuner, for which substantial sums of money were allegedly demanded from her father. Mr. Mishra adds that the Appellant also deposed to instances of verbal abuse, social humiliation, and physical assault, including being rescued by her father, from a rented flat on the night of 11.01.2017, after she was allegedly confined and assaulted by the Respondent. He further contends that the Respondent's attempt to question the character of the Appellant during the trial, without any substantiating evidence, itself amounted to further mental cruelty. Mr. Mishra finally concludes his argument by stating that the Appellant had enough evidence to successfully establish both grounds non-consummation and cruelty, for annulment or, in the alternative, dissolution of marriage, and that the dismissal of her petition by the Family Court MATA No. 272 of 2023 Page 3 of 14 was unreasonable, and unsustainable. Mr. Mishra has placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra vs. K. Meena reported in AIR 2016 SC 4599.
4. Mr. S. R. Pattnaik, appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the Family Court rightly dismissed the petition as the Appellant had failed to establish either of the grounds of non-consummation due to impotency or cruelty under Sections 12(1)(a) and 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. He argues that the allegations of impotency were wholly unfounded and unsubstantiated, particularly when the parties had cohabited continuously after marriage and even celebrated anniversaries and travelled together up to nearly three years after the alleged date of separation. He pointed to the admitted fact of a honeymoon in Australia, multiple pleasure trips, engraved tattoos symbolising mutual affection, and the absence of any contemporaneous complaints or proceedings under the IPC or Domestic Violence Act. Mr. Pattnaik further contends that the Appellant's own handwritten letters (Exhibits C, D, and E) demonstrated a loving and happy marital relationship, directly contradicting her case of cruelty and estrangement. Mr. Pattnaik asserts that as for the claims of dowry demands, the Respondent has reiterated that all items such as the Verna, XUV 500, and other gifts were either voluntary or necessitated by the Appellant's own physical requirements and were registered in her name. The allegation regarding the Fortuner was also denied, with documentary evidence establishing that it was purchased by the Respondent's father through a bank loan. He further argues that no acts attributed to him or his family met the legal threshold for "cruelty," and that the Family Court has MATA No. 272 of 2023 Page 4 of 14 correctly found the Appellant's claims to be exaggerated or unsubstantiated. Mr. Pattnaik finally concludes his argument by emphasising that the Respondent has consistently expressed a willingness to resume their marital life and that the Appellant's refusal to reconcile, coupled with her delay in instituting proceedings after nearly four years of cohabitation, indicated that she was seeking to take advantage of her own conduct and therefore, this appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Mr. Pattnaik has placed his reliance on the following decisions - Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey reported in AIR 2002 SC 591; Akella Lalitha vs. Konda Hanumantha Rao & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0929/2022; Neelam Kumari vs. Dayarani reported in AIR 2011 SC 193
5. Having considered the submissions of both the parties, it is imperative on this Court to proceeds to analyse the two principal grounds taken by the Appellant i.e. first, the alleged non- consummation of marriage owing to the Respondent's impotency under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and second, the allegation of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the said Act.
6. The Appellant invoked Section 12(1)(a) of the HMA seeking annulment of the marriage on the ground that the marriage was not consummated owing to the Respondent's alleged impotency. She deposed that from the very night of marriage on 30.01.2015, the Respondent was unable to perform his marital obligations, and this continued despite multiple opportunities and her full cooperation. She claimed that during their honeymoon in MATA No. 272 of 2023 Page 5 of 14 Australia and their time together in Pune and Bhubaneswar, the Respondent persistently avoided physical intimacy, which deeply affected her mental well-being. The Appellant's parents corroborated her version, testifying that she had confided in them about the Respondent's alleged sexual dysfunction. In response, the Respondent denied the allegation, asserting that consummation had taken place on several occasions and that the couple shared a normal sexual relationship throughout their marriage. To substantiate his stand, he relied on three handwritten letters by the Appellant (Exhibits C, D, and E), which reflected emotional closeness and marital harmony inconsistent with a non- consummated marriage. More significantly, the Respondent underwent a Penile Doppler Ultrasound (PDU), a well-recognised and clinically accepted diagnostic test for assessing erectile dysfunction, and the resulting report showed no abnormality, vide Exhibit AA. While the Appellant argued that the test was not conducted by an andrologist, we find that a specialist's (andrologist's) opinion is not an absolute requirement in the instant case, where a valid and relevant diagnostic test like a PDU has already been performed and yielded normal findings. The Appellant did not counter this report with any medical evidence of her own. In light of the PDU findings, the Respondent's consistent narrative, the Appellant's own writings, and continued cohabitation and travel after marriage, the Family Court rightly concluded that the allegation of impotency was not established.
7. As far as the grounds for seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, as urged by the Appellant, is concerned, the same is based on the ground of cruelty, owing to the demand of MATA No. 272 of 2023 Page 6 of 14 dowry, wherein, it is alleged that she was subjected to persistent dowry demands by the Respondent and his family members. The Appellant alleged that before the marriage, her father was coerced into making lavish arrangements, including being compelled to arrange for a BMW 7 Series white car, failing which the Respondent's father allegedly threatened to call off the wedding. When that demand could not be met, a substitute BMW 5 Series car, allegedly borrowed from a Member of Parliament, was arranged to escort the groom. This delay purportedly caused the rituals to be postponed by over six hours. The Appellant further stated that post-marriage, the Respondent expressed displeasure with the Verna car (bearing Regn. No. OD-02-X-2099) gifted at the time of marriage, calling it unbefitting for his status, and demanded that it be replaced with a Mahindra XUV 500. Her father eventually complied, and the new vehicle was registered in her name. Subsequently, in March 2017, the Respondent allegedly returned the XUV keys and demanded ₹30,00,000/- for a Toyota Fortuner, which her father later arranged through a hand loan. However, the Respondent has denied these were dowry demands and stated that all items were either customary gifts or given voluntarily. Scrutiny of the evidence led before the trial Court reveals that, during cross- examination, P.W.1, the Appellant, admitted that her father had gifted the Verna car and that it was bought on hypothecation from ICICI Bank. She further admitted that the same Verna car was taken back by her father and replaced with an XUV 500. It was also admitted that the XUV 500 remained in her possession. Regarding the Fortuner, P.W.2, Appellant's mother, admitted that the vehicle was purchased by the Respondent's father and was hypothecated MATA No. 272 of 2023 Page 7 of 14 with SBI, though she could not confirm the date or payment of EMIs. The Registration Certificate vide Ext.V proved that the Toyota Fortuner (OD-02-AR-0001) was purchased in the name of the Respondent's father, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Panda, and was under
hypothecation. The Respondent also placed on record the Appellant's letters vide Exts.C, D, and E, which made no mention of dowry pressure or abuse and instead expressed affection and guilt of the Appellant over past conduct. In this backdrop, the Family Court concluded that the Appellant failed to establish any concrete evidence of coercive dowry demands or harassment associated with the transfer of property. The Court held that absent any contemporaneous complaint, FIR, or initiation of proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the financial contributions cited by the Appellant, though substantial, could not be taken to constitute cruelty in the legal sense. It further noted that most of the vehicles were registered in the Appellant's name and were therefore not demonstrative of wrongful gain or unlawful demand by the Respondent or his family.
8. Beyond the dowry allegations, the Appellant cited various forms of emotional and verbal abuse to substantiate her claim of mental cruelty. She alleged that her mother-in-law routinely subjected her to degrading remarks, referring to her as "Alakhyani,"
"witch," and "Dahani," and insulted her father, calling him a "Madua." She further stated that the Respondent and his father would remain silent or even enjoy such verbal abuse, thus tacitly approving the mistreatment. According to her, she was socially MATA No. 272 of 2023 Page 8 of 14 isolated within the matrimonial home and constantly belittled for not bringing sufficient dowry. The Appellant also narrated an incident from January 2017, when she was allegedly confined in a room and physically assaulted by the Respondent at their rented accommodation in Z-1 Estate, Bhubaneswar, leading her to call her father at 11 p.m. for rescue. Her version, however, was substantially undermined during cross-examination, where she admitted that no police complaint or Domestic Violence case had ever been initiated, nor had any medical record of injury been produced. The Respondent denied the allegations and highlighted that after the alleged incident of 11.01.2017, the couple jointly celebrated their second wedding anniversary at Goa on 30.01.2017, and also travelled together to Puri on 04.02.2017 and Mumbai on 02.09.2017, respectively. These events were supported by photographs and travel documents placed on record, suggesting that the allegations are stage managed. Under no stretch of imagination, a woman who fell prey for the rescue in the night would agree to accompany the person who ill treated her just a few days before. Furthermore, the Respondent relied on handwritten letters by the Appellant (Exhibits C, D, and E), written during their marriage, which reflected warmth, affection, and no trace of abuse or distress. One such letter included an apology by the Appellant, expressing guilt and describing the matrimonial home as a place where she felt cared for.
The Family Court too gave considerable weight to these letters and observed that such affectionate communications were inconsistent with the Appellant's narrative of sustained cruelty. On overall assessment, the Court concluded that the allegations of MATA No. 272 of 2023 Page 9 of 14 verbal and emotional abuse, even if partially true, did not meet the threshold of "cruelty" as defined in law i.e., conduct so grave and harmful as to create a reasonable apprehension that continued cohabitation would endanger the petitioner's physical or mental well-being. The Family Court therefore rejected this ground, treating the parties' conflicts as no more than the ordinary friction and wear-and-tear of married life.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337, has observed that -
"15. If so, the question arises what kind of cruel treatment does clause (i-a) contemplate? In particular, what is the kind of mental cruelty that is required to be established? While answering these questions, it must be kept in mind that the cruelty mentioned in clause (i-a) is a ground now for divorce as well as for judicial separation under Section 10. Another circumstance to be kept in mind is that even where the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the Act, even after the 1976 (Amendment) Act, does not permit dissolution of marriage on that ground. This circumstance may have to be kept in mind while ascertaining the type of cruelty contemplated by Section 13(1)(i-a).
16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, MATA No. 272 of 2023 Page 10 of 14 educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be Determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made."
10. Upon further reappraisal of the evidence, this Court finds that the Appellant has failed to establish cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The allegations of dowry-related demands are directly contradicted by her own admissions during cross-examination, wherein she acknowledged that the Verna and XUV 500 vehicles were gifted by her father and remained in her possession. She further agreed that the Fortuner Sigma-4 vehicle was purchased by the Respondent's father through a bank loan, as evidenced by Ext.V. No contemporaneous complaint, FIR, or legal proceedings were initiated at any point, and the absence of any timely objection undermines the claim of coercive dowry demands.
As to the allegations of verbal abuse and mental harassment, the record establishes continued cohabitation and shared celebrations well beyond the alleged date of separation. The Appellant's own handwritten letters vide Exts. C, D, and E demonstrate a cordial and affectionate marital relationship, wholly inconsistent with the claim of sustained cruelty. The accusations against the Respondent and his family are unsupported by any corroborative evidence or independent testimony. The conduct MATA No. 272 of 2023 Page 11 of 14 complained of does not meet the threshold of legal cruelty and reflects, at most, ordinary marital discord. The findings of the Family Court on this issue are, therefore, affirmed.
11. The principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Supra), are apposite in the present context. As per the decision, the mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) must be such that it renders it impossible for the aggrieved party to reasonably be expected to continue cohabiting with the other spouse. The Apex Court emphasised that cruelty must be assessed contextually, keeping in view the social and personal circumstances of the parties, and that what may be considered cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another. Applying this test, this Court finds that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate conduct so grave or injurious as to fall within the meaning of mental cruelty. On the contrary, the record reveals that even after the filing of the divorce petition in November 2018, the Appellant and the Respondent continued to participate in shared family life. Most notably, they travelled together to Goa in December 2018 to celebrate the birthday of the Appellant's mother, a clear indication of ongoing familial engagement and cordial relations. Furthermore, the handwritten letters written by the Appellant, admitted into evidence as Exts.C, D, and E, reflect not a single instance of mistreatment or grievance, but instead express deep remorse and sincere appreciation for the Respondent and his family. The tone and tenor of these letters is apologetic and affectionate, acknowledging the emotional support and care extended by her in-laws, and contains unequivocal acceptance of her own shortcomings. These letters cannot be read as routine correspondence but must be viewed as MATA No. 272 of 2023 Page 12 of 14 spontaneous admissions made in the course of the marital relationship, directly undermining the Appellant's claim of sustained abuse. When assessed alongside the absence of any contemporaneous legal complaint, the long duration of cohabitation, and repeated instances of family bonding even after the alleged breakdown, the allegations of mental cruelty are found to be not only unsubstantiated but fundamentally incompatible with the totality of evidence. The standard of mental cruelty rightly prevents dissolution of marriage based on exaggerated or uncorroborated allegations arising from transient discord.
12. This Court is not unmindful of the emotional toll that matrimonial disputes exert on individuals and families. Marriage is not merely a legal contract, it is a deeply personal bond built on trust, mutual respect, and shared life. When such relationships falter, the bitterness and blame that follow often obscure moments of genuine care and companionship that once existed. In the present case, the record reflects not a relationship marred by cruelty, but one that gradually succumbed to interpersonal differences and unmet expectations. However, the legal threshold for divorce on the ground of cruelty is stringent and must be supported by cogent and consistent evidence. Courts are bound to adjudicate not on sentiment, but on facts and law.
13. In light of the above discussions, the findings of the Family Court are found to be sound and supported by overwhelming evidence. The actions alleged do not meet the threshold of mental cruelty as defined under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity and no cause to MATA No. 272 of 2023 Page 13 of 14 interfere with the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, rejecting the dissolution of marriage.
14. The Appeal is hence dismissed on merit.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
B.P. Routray, J. I agree.
(B. P. Routray)
Judge
A.K.Pradhan/Bijay
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 05-May-2025 16:20:55
MATA No. 272 of 2023 Page 14 of 14