Bhubaneswar: The Orissa High Court has upheld a divorce granted by a Family Court in Puri, ruling that repeated derogatory remarks made by a wife about her husband’s physical disability constituted mental cruelty — a valid ground for dissolving a marriage.
A two-member division bench comprising Justices Bibhu Prasad Routray and Chittaranjan Dash delivered the judgment, which was made public on Friday. The court observed that persistent verbal abuse, especially targeting a person’s physical condition, amounts to mental cruelty and violates the principles of mutual respect essential to marital life.
As per case records, the couple married in 2016, but their relationship soon deteriorated. The wife left the matrimonial home shortly after marriage but returned following a reconciliation in January 2017. However, she left again in 2018 to stay with her parents and has remained there since.
In 2019, the husband filed for divorce, alleging that his wife habitually insulted him over his physical infirmity, using demeaning terms like “Kempa” and “Nikhattu” — local slurs referring to his disability — causing him severe mental distress.
The terms ‘Kempa’ and ‘Nikhattu’ translates in English as ‘physically deformed or ill-structured individual’ and ‘unproductive,’ respectively.
The Family Court in Puri granted the divorce, without awarding permanent alimony. The wife challenged this verdict in the High Court, contending that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and denying the cruelty charges.
The High Court, however, dismissed her appeal. In its ruling, the Bench emphasised that cruelty in marriage is not confined to physical harm; persistent verbal humiliation that inflicts mental agony is equally actionable.
“Marriage rests on mutual care and respect,” the court observed, adding that a spouse is expected to be a source of emotional support, especially in the face of physical challenges. The wife’s continued derogatory remarks breached this fundamental expectation, the court held.
Regarding the wife’s demand for permanent alimony and the return of her Streedhan (personal belongings and gifts received during marriage), the court refrained from issuing any direction, citing insufficient evidence about the husband’s income. However, it granted her liberty to approach the Family Court afresh for adjudication on these financial claims.
