SIPRA SHRABANI MISHRA vs SUBHRANSU SEKHAR PANDA

MATA/483/2025
ODHC010899022025
2025:OHC:6-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.483 of 2025
CNR No.ODHC010899022025


Sipra Sharabani Mishra …. Appellant

Mr. T. Panigrahi, Advocate



-Versus-
Subhransu Sekhar Panda Respondent
….
Mr. A.K. Behera, Advocate





CORAM:
HON ’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
’

Date of Hearing: 17.09.2026
Date of Judgment: 16.10.2026
C HITTARANJAN D ASH , J.
1. The present appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts
Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment dated 18.11.2025
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur in C.P. No.28 of
2025, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the petition filed
by the Respondent-husband under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and dissolved the marriage
between the parties, while directing payment of Rs.3,00,000/-
towards maintenance and permanent alimony to the Appellant-
wife.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on
07.02.2021 according to Hindu rites and customs. The
MATA No.483 of 2025 Page 1 of 12

Respondent-husband instituted C.P. No.28 of 2025 alleging, inter
alia, mental cruelty and desertion on the part of the Appellant-
wife. His case was that, shortly after the marriage, the matrimonial
relationship became strained; the Appellant declined to maintain
normal conjugal relations, subjected him to abusive and
objectionable behaviour and, despite efforts at reconciliation,
ultimately withdrew from his society. The Appellant-wife
contested the proceeding and denied the allegations. She, in turn,
alleged ill-treatment and asserted that the Respondent was
maintaining an inappropriate relationship with the wife of his
younger brother and was also maintaining contacts with other
women. She claimed that she had been neglected and subjected to
mental cruelty by the Respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the learned
Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence and
has accepted the allegations of the Respondent without sufficient
scrutiny. It is further submitted that the Respondent has a higher
earning capacity than what has been taken into consideration by
the learned Family Court and that the amount of permanent
alimony awarded to the Appellant is wholly inadequate having
regard to the status and circumstances of the parties.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, on the
other hand, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the
findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based upon the
evidence available on record. It is submitted that the Appellant
herself has admitted her unwillingness to resume matrimonial life
MATA No.483 of 2025 Page 2 of 12

and that the parties have been living separately for a considerable
period. The Respondent, therefore, submits that no interference is
warranted. \The learned Family Court framed two issues, namely,
whether the Respondent-husband had been subjected to mental
cruelty and desertion by the Appellant-wife and, if so, whether he
was entitled to a decree of divorce and what amount of
maintenance and permanent alimony ought to be granted to the
Appellant-wife. The Respondent examined three witnesses and
exhibited two documents, whereas the Appellant examined herself
and two other witnesses.
5. The learned Family Court framed two issues, namely,
whether the Respondent-husband had been subjected to mental
cruelty and desertion by the Appellant-wife and, if so, whether he
was entitled to a decree of divorce and what amount of
maintenance and permanent alimony ought to be granted to the
Appellant-wife. The Respondent examined three witnesses and
exhibited two documents, whereas the Appellant examined herself
and two other witnesses.
6.
The learned Family Court, upon consideration of the
evidence, found the testimony of the Respondent-husband to have
received material corroboration from his father and paternal aunt.
The learned Court also noticed that the Appellant’ s own version
contained an admission that she was not willing to resume
conjugal relationship with the Respondent. The prolonged
separation and failure of repeated attempts at reconciliation were
also taken into consideration.
MATA No.483 of 2025 Page 3 of 12

7. As regards permanent alimony, the learned Family Court
noticed that the Appellant was not employed, though she was
B.Sc., B.Ed. qualified, whereas the Respondent was working as a
lecturer. It took the s monthly salary at Rs.17,200/-,
Respondent’
also noticing his personal loan and the restriction imposed by his
employer against private tuition. On that basis, and keeping in
view the principles governing permanent alimony, the learned
Family Court awarded Rs.3,00,000/- to the Appellant.
8. We have independently assessed the pleadings, evidence
and findings recorded by the learned Family Court, keeping in
view our duty as an appellate Court to examine the material on
record rather than merely endorse the conclusion reached by the
Court below.
9. Before proceeding to examine the evidence on record, it
would be apposite to notice the principles governing the
determination of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The expression “cruelty” has an
inseparable nexus with human conduct and behaviour, and its
determination necessarily depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
repeatedly emphasised that the conduct complained of must be
assessed in the context of the matrimonial relationship as a whole,
having regard to the background and circumstances of the parties.
10. In Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal ,
reported in (2012) 7 SCC 288
, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
explaining the nature of cruelty, observed as follows:
MATA No.483 of 2025 Page 4 of 12

“22. The expression “cruelty” has an inseparable nexus
with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always
dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the
parties belong, their ways of life, relationship,
temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by
their social status.
×× ×× ××
25. After so stating, this Court observed in Shobha Rani
case [(1988) 1 SCC 105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60] about the
marked change in life in modern times and the sea change
in matrimonial duties and responsibilities. It has been
observed that: (SCC p. 108, para 5)
“5. … when a spouse makes a complaint about the
treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations,
the court should not search for standard in life. A set of
facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in
another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend
upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or
their economic and social conditions. It may also
depend upon their culture and human values to which
the
y attach importance.”
26. Their Lordships in Shobha Rani case [(1988) 1 SCC
105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60] referred to the observations
made in Sheldon v. Sheldon [1966 P 62 : (1966) 2 WLR
993 : (1966) 2 All ER 257 (CA)] wherein Lord Denning
stated, “the categories of cruelty are not closed”.
Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state thus: (Shobha
Rani case [(1988) 1 SCC 105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60] , SCC
p. 109, paras 5-6)
“ 5 . … Each case may be different. We deal with the
conduct of human beings who are not generally similar.
Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of
conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of
cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the
human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the
conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic)
realm of cruelty.
6. These preliminary observations are intended to
emphasise that the court in matrimonial cases is not
concerned with ideals in family life. The court has only
to understand the spouses concerned as nature made
them, and consider their particular grievance. As Lord
Reid observed in Gollins v. Gollins [1964 AC 644 :
MATA No.483 of 2025 Page 5 of 12

(1963) 3 WLR 176 : (1963) 2 All ER 966 (HL)] : (All
ER p. 972 G-H)
‘… In matrimonial affairs we are not dealing with objective
standards, it is not a matrimonial offence to fall below the
standard of the reasonable man (or the reasonable woman).

We are dealing with this man or this woman.’”
11. The principles governing mental cruelty have been further
Samar Ghosh v.
elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511
, reported in . The relevant
paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
“ 101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for
guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some
instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in
dealing with the cases of mental cruelty . The instances
‘ ’
indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative
and not exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of
the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as
would not make possible for the parties to live with each
other could come within the broad parameters of mental
cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire
matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear
that situation is such that the wronged party cannot
reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and
continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount
to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of
manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree
that it makes the married life for the other spouse
absolutely intolerable

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of
deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse
caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to
mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating
treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render
miserable life of the spouse.
MATA No.483 of 2025 Page 6 of 12

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of
one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of
the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the
resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave,
substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect,
indifference or total departure from the normal standard of
conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or
deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental
cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy,
selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and
dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground
for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and
tear of the married life which happens in day to day life
would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground
of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and
a few isolated instances over a period of years will not
amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a
fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has
deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and
behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it
extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer,
may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of
sterilization without medical reasons and without the
consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife
undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason
or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such
an act of the spouse may lead G to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse
for considerable period without there being any physical
incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after
marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount
to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a Jong period of continuous
separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial
bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction
though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that
MATA No.483 of 2025 Page 7 of 12

tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of
marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the
feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations,
it may lead to mental cruelty ”
12. From the above, it is clear that the Court must undertake a
comprehensive assessment of the evidence and determine whether
the cumulative effect of the conduct complained of has rendered
the continuation of the matrimonial relationship unreasonable to
expect. Equally, the mere failure of one spouse to substantiate an
allegation against the other cannot, by itself, establish cruelty on
the part of the former; the conclusion must emerge from the
evidence considered as a whole.
13.
In the present case, the evidence of the Respondent-
husband is not confined to a solitary assertion. The learned Family
Court noticed material corroboration from P.Ws.2 and 3. The
Appellant’ s own evidence also indicates that, notwithstanding the
efforts made for restoration of the matrimonial relationship, she
was unwilling to resume cohabitation. The parties have remained
separately since 31.12.2022 and the attempts at reconciliation have
admittedly not resulted in restoration of the matrimonial
relationship.
14. The serious allegations and counter-allegations exchanged
between the parties, including those concerning illicit
relationships, physical assault, abusive conduct and the
Appellant’s alleged disinclination to have a child, further reflect
the extent of the matrimonial discord. These allegations, having
remained unsubstantiated, cannot be treated as established facts.
Their significance, however, has to be assessed alongside the
MATA No.483 of 2025 Page 8 of 12

evidence adduced, the prolonged separation and the failure of
reconciliation, rather than in isolation. On an overall assessment of
these circumstances, we find that the learned Family Court was
justified in accepting the Respondent’s case of mental cruelty. The
findings recorded by it do not suffer from any perversity or legal
infirmity warranting interference.

15. The above conclusion is consistent with the approach
adopted by this Bench in the common judgment passed in MATA
Nos. 164 and 165 of 2022. This Bench observed that differences in
financial background, standard of living or lifestyle cannot,
standing alone, constitute matrimonial cruelty, but may be relevant
in understanding the actual dynamics of the matrimonial
relationship. The Court emphasised that the surrounding
circumstances must be assessed as a whole, particularly where
financial allegations form part of the larger dispute, efforts at
reconciliation repeatedly fail and separation continues over a
prolonged period.
16. Applying that approach to the present case, we find that
the evidence of the parties, the allegations exchanged between
them, the cessation of cohabitation and the unsuccessful efforts at
reconciliation, when viewed cumulatively, establish that the
matrimonial relationship had deteriorated beyond the stage of
ordinary matrimonial disagreement. We, therefore, find no ground
to interfere with the decree of dissolution of marriage granted by
the learned Family Court.
MATA No.483 of 2025 Page 9 of 12

17. The question of permanent alimony, however, requires
separate consideration. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act does
not prescribe any mathematical formula for determination of
permanent alimony. The Court is required to take into account the
income and financial capacity of the parties, their respective
needs, status, obligations, age, qualifications and other attendant
circumstances. As noticed by the learned Family Court itself, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in U. Sree v. U. Srinivas , reported in AIR
2013 SC 415 , has emphasised that the amount should be such as to
preserve the dignity of the wife without imposing an unreasonable
burden upon the husband. The decision in Kalyan Dey
Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy , reported in
(2017) 1 SCC 1099 , also makes it clear that the reference to 25%
of the husband s net salary is not an inflexible formula and that the
’
amount has to depend upon the factual circumstances of each case.
18. In the present case, the Appellant is presently without
employment, though she possesses B.Sc. and B.Ed. qualifications.
The Respondent’ s proved salary was Rs.17,200/- per month. At
the same time, the material on record shows that he has financial
liabilities, including a personal loan, and that his employer has
restricted him from undertaking private tuition. The Appellant’ s
earning qualification is a relevant circumstance, but it cannot, by
itself, be treated as a substitute for her present financial
independence.
19. Having regard to the age and circumstances of the parties,
the duration of the matrimonial relationship, the prolonged
MATA No.483 of 2025 Page 10 of 12

separation, the financial position of the Respondent, the present
lack of independent income of the Appellant and the fact that the
marriage is being dissolved at the instance of the Respondent, we
are of the considered view that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-
awarded by the learned Family Court requires some enhancement.
Taking a pragmatic approach, therefore, we consider a total
amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) towards
permanent alimony to be just and reasonable in the facts of the
case.
20. It is noticed that, pursuant to the impugned judgment, the
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has already been paid to and received by
the Appellant. Consequently, the enhanced amount shall be
adjusted against the amount already received and the Respondent
shall be liable to pay only the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/-
21. For the reasons aforesaid, while we find no ground to
interfere with the decree of dissolution of marriage passed by the
learned Family Court, the direction relating to permanent alimony
requires modification to the limited extent indicated above. The
appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed.

22. The judgment dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Jajpur in C.P. No.28 of 2025, insofar as it
dissolves the marriage between the parties, is affirmed.
23. The amount of permanent alimony payable to the
Appellant-wife is enhanced from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/-
(Rupees six lakhs only). Since the Appellant has already received
Rs.3,00,000/- pursuant to the impugned judgment, the
MATA No.483 of 2025 Page 11 of 12

Respondent-husband shall pay the balance amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- to the Appellant within a period of three months
(03) from the date of communication of this order.
24. The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. The impugned judgment and decree stand modified
accordingly.
I Agree.


(Harish Tandon) (Chittaranjan Dash)
Chief Justice Judge








Bijay/Sarbani
MATA No.483 of 2025 Page 12 of 12