Sachidananda Patra vs Indumati Patra

Arindam Sinha, J

The husband is before us in appeal. He says he is aggrieved by judgment dated 30th November, 2021 of the Family Court, by which his petition for dissolution of the marriage was dismissed on contest. Mr. Chand, learned advocate appears on his behalf. Mr. Pattanaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent-wife.

Order sheet reveals parties had asked to be referred to mediation. Furthermore, appellant-husband wanted respondent-wife to agree to take permanent alimony at ₹15,00,000/- for divorce by mutual consent. All efforts at reconciliation failed and the appeal came up for hearing.

We had indicated to Mr. Chand for him to demonstrate pleadings and proof regarding his client’s contention of cruelty meted out by respondent-wife. This was because Mr. Chand had submitted earlier that cruelty was the only ground.

Mr. Chand refers us to the evidence on affidavit notarized on 5th July, 2019, filed by his client. He draws attention to paragraphs-5 and 6 in it. On query he submits, allegations made therein were proved by his client.

We have perused paragraphs-5 and 6 of the evidence on affidavit filed by appellant-husband. Keeping the allegations made therein in mind we have also perused cross-examination of respondent-wife as appearing from depositions dated 26th July, 2021, 2nd August, 2021 and 23rd August, 2021. On careful consideration of said depositions in cross-examination we have not been able to find appellant-husband was able to make out a case of cruelty. Allegations made in relied upon paragraphs of the evidence on affidavit does not find mention in the depositions, even as suggestions. The depositions appear to be statement of facts, elicited from respondent-wife in cross-examination. We appreciate therefrom, the marriage was solemnized on 19th February, 2006 and at that time respondent-wife was residing with her parents at Puri because she was working in the civil Court there. They were blessed with a male child on 2nd May, 2007, who unfortunately was discovered to be suffering from ailments. There are clear statements of respondent-wife regarding furniture brought to their rented apartment by appellant-husband as given to him by his father. Also there are statements that she provided finance for up-keep of the family. Furthermore, she said in cross-examination that she was not willing for second issue. Fact is the couple had second issue. She said further that appellant-husband occasionally took liquor and would have taken more but for his financial situation. He also took tobacco (Gutkha). All this she having said in cross-examination must be taken as evidence because they were in answer to questions put on behalf of appellant-husband. His case of cruelty meted out by respondent-wife does not find any admission or corroboration in the cross-examination.

In addition appellant-husband in his cross-examination, in paragraph-23 of deposition dated 3rd March, 2020 had admitted that in his affidavit evidence, paragraph-2 he had not specifically mentioned regarding conduct and behaviour of respondent-wife, which was not good. He admitted to have not specifically described about incidents, from which he could realize her conduct and behaviour were not good.

At this stage Mr. Chand submits, of late respondent-wife had lodged complaint with the police, registered on 16th August, 2018 as FIR, pursuant to which Bhubaneswar Mahila PS Case no.67 dated 16th August, 2018 was started. Certified copies of order sheets in that connection were tendered as exhibit-8 series in the civil proceeding. The complaint was false and it amounts to cruelty. We, however, could not find any suggestion to that effect given to respondent-wife, when she was in the box and being cross-examined. In the circumstances, veracity of her complaint in initiating the case or cases must await adjudication and finding therein. So far as this case is concerned, materials on record do not warrant interference with impugned judgment.

We have not called upon Mr. Pattanaik to submit.

Impugned judgment is confirmed. We record our observation that notwithstanding the confirmation, parties may find reconciliation either by getting back together or in jointly petitioning for mutual divorce, if they agree to do so in future.

The appeal is dismissed.

.………………………….