MATA No. 104 of 2011. Case: Usharani Pradhan Vs Brajakishore Pradhan. Orissa High Court

Case Number:MATA No. 104 of 2011
Party Name:Usharani Pradhan Vs Brajakishore Pradhan
Counsel:For Appellant: Debi Prasad Dhal, S.K. Dash and A. Behera, Advs. and For Respondents: Dinesh Kumar Mohanty and Deepak Kumar Rath, Advs.
Judges:Vinod Prasad and S. K. Sahoo, JJ.
Issue:Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955) - Section 13(1)(ib)(ia)
Citation:AIR 2016 ORISSA 17
Judgement Date:November 19, 2015
Court:Orissa High Court


S. K. Sahoo, J.

"A home with a loving and loyal husband and wife is the supreme setting in which children can be reared in love and righteousness and in which the spiritual and physical needs of children can be met."

David A. Bednar

  1. This case depicts the sordid episode of the life of a woman who spoiled her homely environment and family relationships running after the politics and politicians forgetting her solemn duties and responsibilities of a matrimonial life and neglecting her husband and children. She was cautioned and reminded of her pious obligations but she was mesmerized so much by the political thoughts and quite adamant that she failed to understand the consequence of her negligent attitude. When she faced the reality and started realizing her wrongdoings, by that time it was too late and much water had flowed under the bridge.

    This matrimonial appeal has been filed by Usharani Pradhan (hereafter "the appellant") under section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with section 19(1) of Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri in Civil Proceeding No. 162 of 2010 in allowing the petition filed by Brajakishore Pradhan (hereafter "the respondent") under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and dissolving the marriage between the parties with a decree of divorce subject to payment of alimony of monthly maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- by the respondent-husband to the appellant-wife.

  2. It is the case of the respondent-husband that he married the appellant on 22.05.1991 in accordance with the caste, custom and rites and both of them stayed together as husband and wife and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter and a son. It is the further case that since the appellant was interested in political activities, she neglected the family and she used to return back home in the late hour of the night. Even though the respondent raised objection but the appellant did not bother about the same. She was not preparing food for her family members and behaving very badly with her husband and even gone to extent of instituting false police cases against him for which he was taken into custody. The appellant left her in-laws' house on 07.03.2007 and started residing at another place. After desertion of the appellant for a period of more than two years, the respondent instituted a divorce proceeding on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

  3. On being noticed, the appellant appeared and filed her written statement and denied the averments made in the divorce petition. She put forth a case that after her maternal aunt expired giving birth to a female child, she and her husband adopted that child as their own daughter but when both of them were blessed with a daughter and son, the respondent lost interest in the adopted child and pressed the appellant to hand over the child back to her father. As the appellant did not agree to such proposal of her husband, there was dissention between the couple and for that reason the respondent started taking liquor and assaulting the appellant mercilessly causing serious injuries for which she instituted G.R. cases. The respondent also started maintaining distance from the appellant as a result of which their relationship deteriorated. It is her further case that after being mercilessly assaulted, she was driven out of her in-laws house with her adopted daughter for which she was constrained to take shelter in her paternal place at Jatani. The appellant denied the allegations leveled against her by the respondent regarding cruelty and desertion and it is her case that such allegations have been concocted just to get a decree of divorce and prayed to dismiss the divorce petition.

  4. The learned Family Judge formulated the following points for determination:-

    (i) Whether the respondent was entitled to divorce the appellant on the ground that she had treated him with cruelty?

    (ii) Whether the appellant had deserted the respondent for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition?

  5. In order to prove his case, the respondent examined himself as P.W. 1 and proved certain documents. Ext. 1 and Ext. 3 are the certified copies of the FIR, Ext. 2 and 4 are the certified copies of the charge-sheet, Ext. 5 series is the notice issued by Mahila Commissioner and Ext. 6 series is the cash receipt issued by Sovaniya Sikhashram.

    The appellant examined himself as R.W. 1.

  6. The learned Family Judge while discussing the evidence on record has been pleased to observe that the case of the appellant that the respondent had kept the seized articles in the house of a Muslim at Tiadi Sahi which was seized by police is not correct inasmuch as the articles were seized from the house of the respondent as per seizure list and was left in the Zima of the appellant.

    It was further held that the allegation that the respondent had history of contact with home guard Netramani Dei has not been substantiated anywhere rather such allegation amounts to cruelty to her better half. It was...

To continue reading