Latest news with #OdishaHighCourt
Economic Times
29-06-2025
- Economic Times
Mental cruelty: Know how a husband won a divorce battle in High Court as wife mocked his physical infirmity; Permanent alimony amount to be decided
ET Online Divorce: Wife mocking husband for physical infirmity is mental cruelty, valid ground for divorce, rules High Court On May 5, 2025, the Odisha High Court upheld a family court's ruling stating that if a wife passes negative mocking remarks about her husband's physical disabilities, it constitutes mental cruelty, allowing the husband to seek a divorce. The family court had also ruled that this divorce should be granted without any permanent alimony for the wife, which sparked the dispute. The wife was seeking a permanent alimony and the return of her Streedhan properties. There was no contention regarding the divorce itself. However, the High Court kept the alimony question open and advised the wife to bring up the alimony and Streedhan issue under Sections 25 and 27 in the family court. The wife had challenged the claim that her remarks about her husband's physical condition constituted mental cruelty. She said before the Odisha High Court that it has not been proved that her comments inflicted mental cruelty on her husband. The Odisha High Court looked into her claims and noted that several witnesses have verified that the wife had passed comments about her husband's physical infirmity, calling him 'Kempa, Nikhatu' and this fact hasn't been challenged. The High Court also said: 'The Wife making such statements against the Husband towards his physical infirmity definitely is causing mental pain. Such behaviour by the wife towards the husband discloses her thought and respect towards the husband.'However, the High Court said that under Section 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife can file another case in family court with regard to grant of permanent alimony and return of Streedhan properties. Hence with this judgement, the High Court confirmed the divorce decree but did not decide on the alimony out the details below to understand why the husband got a divorce (on ground of cruelty) without having to pay alimony, although later the High Court advised the wife to bring up the alimony and Streedhan issue under Sections 25 and 27 in the family court. How did this divorce alimony case start? According to the order of the Odisha High Court dated May 5, 2025, here's the timeline of events: June 1, 2016: The couple married by following Hindu rites and customs. June 2 to September 14 of 2016: The husband alleged that the wife was always passing comments about his physical infirmity and hence unpleasant situations arose between them. September 15, 2016: The wife left her husband's house and came back on January 5, 2017, after negotiations. She then also continued to comment on the husband's physical disabilities which resulted in serious dispute between the parties. March 25, 2018: She voluntarily left the matrimonial house. Thereafter she also lodged a criminal case alleging the offences under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and other offences against the Husband and in-laws. April 3, 2019: The husband filed a divorce case against the wife for dissolving the marriage. July 10, 2023: The Puri family court passed a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties without any grant of permanent alimony. The wife filed an appeal in High Court against only the alimony aspect. Odisha High Court investigated the husband and wife's claims The Odisha High Court said: Though two witnesses were examined on behalf of the Husband-Plaintiff, the Wife did not choose to examine any witness and not to adduce any evidence from her side though she cross-examined the Husband and his witnesses. Therefore, what is to be seen is that, in absence of any evidence led from the side of the Wife, whether the evidence brought on record by the Husband would satisfy his grounds of cruelty to grant the decree of divorce? Learned Judge, Family Court, Puri has framed five issues, amongst which Issue No.(ii) speaks about subjecting the Plaintiff to ill-treatment and mental cruelty by the Wife. All such issues including Issue No.(ii) has been answered in favour of the Husband. As borne out from the evidence of the Husband (P.W.1) that, the Wife is passing comments to her Husband saying 'Kempa, Nikhatu, etc.' Though the Wife has cross-examined the Husband, but did not suggest anything to rebut such statements made on the part of the Husband and it is also admitted by the Wife that she has initiated a criminal proceeding against the Husband and other in-law members. Also read: Divorce case: Wife's WhatsApp chats can be valid evidence about her extramarital affair, even when obtained without her consent, rules Madhya Pradesh High Court Odisha High Court answers whether cruelty includes mental cruelty and how it can be used as grounds of divorce The Odisha High Court said: Cruelty includes mental cruelty. Time and again, it has been clarified regarding the scope of mental cruelty. The Supreme Court in the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs), (1994) 1 SCC 337 have also held this. As stated by the witness in the case at hand that the Wife passed comments to the physical infirmity of the Husband saying him as 'Kempa, Nikhatu' remains un-rebutted. The Wife making such statements against the Husband towards his physical infirmity definitely is causing mental pain. Such behaviour by the wife towards the Husband discloses her thought and respect to the Husband. A person is expected to give respect to another person in general and where it comes to the relationship of Husband and Wife, it is expected that the Wife should support the Husband despite his physical infirmity, if any. Here it is a case where the wife made aspersions to Husband towards his physical infirmity and passed comments regarding the same. This definitely in our opinion amounts to mental cruelty leading to draw an inference against the Wife that she treated her Husband with cruelty owing to his physical deformity. Thus we are inclined with the finding of the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri that the Wife has treated her Husband with mental cruelty. On such ground, we are satisfied that the requirement in terms of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act is attracted to grant the decree of divorce. We thus confirm the impugned judgment granting the decree of divorce between the parties dissolving their marriage. Also read: Matrimonial Dispute: Husband loses job after wife wins case; Know how this impacts private and government employeesFinal judgement: 'At this stage, with regard to grant of permanent alimony and return of Streedhan properties, as claimed by the Appellant-Wife, are left open to her to be agitated before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri in terms of Sections 25 & 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. We say so for the reason that, there is no material produced on record with regard to income of the Husband or the Wife and in absence of any material, we are unable to decide the question of permanent alimony here. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.' What do the legal experts say? Pallavi Pratap, Managing Partner, Pratap & Co. says: 'This judgment is significant because cruelty is proven against the wife. Very rarely do we see such judgments. Although questions involving permanent alimony and Streedhan have been kept open, I see this as a major breakthrough. Traditionally laws in India have favoured women but increasingly such judgments indicate that men are now also seen to be victims.' What is the significance of this judgement? ET Wealth Online has asked various experts about what could be the significance of this judgement, here's what they said: Shivani Gupta, associate, Gandhi law Associates, says: The Orissa High Court's reasoning aligns with the Supreme Court's stance in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, where it was held that mental cruelty includes not only overt abuse but also sustained false or reckless allegations that damage a spouse's dignity and professional standing. The Court clarified that even without a judicial finding of falsity, defamatory complaints especially to employers in sensitive services can inflict serious harm and amount to cruelty sufficient for divorce. Together, these rulings affirm that men enduring emotional and reputational harm in marriage have equal legal protection and recourse. Aditya Chopra, Managing Partner, The Victoriam Legalis (TVL) says: This High Court of Orissa's ruling is a landmark decision in Indian matrimonial law, affirming mental cruelty as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Its significance lies in the following: Mental Cruelty defined and applied: The court upheld the Family Court's divorce decree, finding that the wife's derogatory remarks (e.g., 'Kempa, Nikhatu') about the husband's physical disability constituted mental cruelty, rendering cohabitation intolerable. Citing V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, the court emphasized that mental cruelty is context-specific, assessed based on the parties' social, educational, and cultural backgrounds, and includes conduct causing significant mental pain. The court upheld the Family Court's divorce decree, finding that the wife's derogatory remarks (e.g., 'Kempa, Nikhatu') about the husband's physical disability constituted mental cruelty, rendering cohabitation intolerable. Citing V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, the court emphasized that mental cruelty is context-specific, assessed based on the parties' social, educational, and cultural backgrounds, and includes conduct causing significant mental pain. Protection of dignity: The judgment highlights judicial sensitivity to protecting individuals with disabilities from humiliation within marriage. The wife's remarks targeting the husband's physical infirmity were deemed a clear instance of mental cruelty, setting a precedent for cases involving personal vulnerabilities. The judgment highlights judicial sensitivity to protecting individuals with disabilities from humiliation within marriage. The wife's remarks targeting the husband's physical infirmity were deemed a clear instance of mental cruelty, setting a precedent for cases involving personal vulnerabilities. Financial claims deferred: The court left claims for permanent alimony and Streedhan open under Sections 25 and 27, citing insufficient evidence of the parties' financial status. This reinforces the necessity of documented financial details to resolve maintenance and property disputes. The court left claims for permanent alimony and Streedhan open under Sections 25 and 27, citing insufficient evidence of the parties' financial status. This reinforces the necessity of documented financial details to resolve maintenance and property disputes. Statutory limits on divorce: The court reiterated that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a standalone ground for divorce under Indian law, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory grounds like cruelty, despite prolonged separation (since 25 March 2018). Chopra adds: 'The judgment offers critical guidance for husbands in matrimonial disputes under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Husbands seeking divorce on grounds of mental cruelty must substantiate claims with robust evidence, such as witness testimonies or documented instances of abusive conduct, as demonstrated by the husband's un-rebutted testimony and corroboration in this case. Parallel criminal proceedings, like the wife's Section 498-A IPC complaint, require strategic handling to avoid undermining the divorce petition. Husbands must disclose financial details proactively to address alimony claims equitably, as the court deferred such issues for lack of evidence. Prompt filing, as seen in the husband's 2019 petition, and prolonged separation can strengthen claims, though statutory grounds like cruelty remain paramount.' Shivanngi Chadhaa, Advocate, Jotwani Associates says: The decision is significant for two key legal reflections: 1. The Expanding Definition of Mental Cruelty The Court's recognition that repeated verbal humiliation targeting a spouse's physical infirmity can amount to mental cruelty marks a progressive interpretation of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This ruling reinforces the judicial stance that cruelty need not be physical or demonstrative; it can lie in sustained emotional degradation that renders cohabitation insufferable. The reliance on landmark cases such as V. Bhagat and Samar Ghosh affirms that cruelty is to be understood contextually with sensitivity to social standing, emotional thresholds, and the nuances of modern marriage. 2. Alimony Deferred, Not Denied: The Court also took a balanced view by reserving the wife's right to seek permanent alimony separately, reinforcing that financial determinations must be evidence-based and procedurally sound. By reserving the Wife's right to claim permanent alimony and Streedhan under Sections 25 and 27of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court has underscored the principle that equitable relief must be substantiated with financial disclosures. This careful balancing ensures that alimony is neither presumed nor denied in vacuum, but determined on evidentiary merit. According to Amir Khan, associate, Accord Juris LLP: This case not only affirms the rights of husbands under cruelty provisions often viewed from a wife-centric lens but also sets a judicial precedent that verbal cruelty rooted in physical shaming is intolerable and actionable. Here's some key legal takeaways: The Court confirmed that ridiculing a spouse for physical disabilities constitutes mental cruelty, giving husbands a strong legal footing under Section 13(1)(i-a) to seek divorce. The wife's request for permanent alimony was denied for lack of financial disclosure, but the judgment hints that fault-based conduct like cruelty can influence alimony decisions, especially if the claimant is the offending party. The verdict reinforces that mental cruelty is not gender-specific. By citing V. Bhagat and Samar Ghosh, the Court reiterated that both husbands and wives have equal legal protection against abusive conduct in marriage. This case strengthens the evidentiary and judicial roadmap for similar future claims, promoting consistency in how courts evaluate emotional abuse and verbal cruelty in matrimonial disputes. Vivek Joshi, Senior Associate, PSL Advocates & Solicitors, says: The present decision holds immense significance since it not only recognizes mental cruelty within the definition of cruelty but also considers the aspersions made by the wife against the husband in relation to his physical infirmity as being under the ambit of mental cruelty. The key takeaway from the decision is that even in cases of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty, however, the same does not dispense cogent evidence and such allegations must be proved. What did the Supreme Court of India say about mental cruelty of husband The High Court cited the Supreme Court in the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs), (1994) 1 SCC 337 where it was held: 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, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they were 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.'
Time of India
29-06-2025
- Time of India
Mental cruelty: Know how a husband won a divorce battle in High Court as wife mocked his physical infirmity; Permanent alimony amount to be decided
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills How did this divorce alimony case start? June 1, 2016: The couple married by following Hindu rites and customs. June 2 to September 14 of 2016: The husband alleged that the wife was always passing comments about his physical infirmity and hence unpleasant situations arose between them. September 15, 2016: The wife left her husband's house and came back on January 5, 2017, after negotiations. She then also continued to comment on the husband's physical disabilities which resulted in serious dispute between the parties. March 25, 2018: She voluntarily left the matrimonial house. Thereafter she also lodged a criminal case alleging the offences under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and other offences against the Husband and in-laws. April 3, 2019: The husband filed a divorce case against the wife for dissolving the marriage. July 10, 2023: The Puri family court passed a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties without any grant of permanent alimony. Odisha High Court investigated the husband and wife's claims Though two witnesses were examined on behalf of the Husband-Plaintiff, the Wife did not choose to examine any witness and not to adduce any evidence from her side though she cross-examined the Husband and his witnesses. Therefore, what is to be seen is that, in absence of any evidence led from the side of the Wife, whether the evidence brought on record by the Husband would satisfy his grounds of cruelty to grant the decree of divorce? Learned Judge, Family Court, Puri has framed five issues, amongst which Issue No.(ii) speaks about subjecting the Plaintiff to ill-treatment and mental cruelty by the Wife. All such issues including Issue No.(ii) has been answered in favour of the Husband. As borne out from the evidence of the Husband (P.W.1) that, the Wife is passing comments to her Husband saying 'Kempa, Nikhatu, etc.' Though the Wife has cross-examined the Husband, but did not suggest anything to rebut such statements made on the part of the Husband and it is also admitted by the Wife that she has initiated a criminal proceeding against the Husband and other in-law members. Odisha High Court answers whether cruelty includes mental cruelty and how it can be used as grounds of divorce Cruelty includes mental cruelty. Time and again, it has been clarified regarding the scope of mental cruelty. The Supreme Court in the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs), (1994) 1 SCC 337 have also held this. As stated by the witness in the case at hand that the Wife passed comments to the physical infirmity of the Husband saying him as 'Kempa, Nikhatu' remains un-rebutted. The Wife making such statements against the Husband towards his physical infirmity definitely is causing mental pain. Such behaviour by the wife towards the Husband discloses her thought and respect to the Husband. A person is expected to give respect to another person in general and where it comes to the relationship of Husband and Wife, it is expected that the Wife should support the Husband despite his physical infirmity, if any. Here it is a case where the wife made aspersions to Husband towards his physical infirmity and passed comments regarding the same. This definitely in our opinion amounts to mental cruelty leading to draw an inference against the Wife that she treated her Husband with cruelty owing to his physical deformity. Thus we are inclined with the finding of the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri that the Wife has treated her Husband with mental cruelty. On such ground, we are satisfied that the requirement in terms of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act is attracted to grant the decree of divorce. We thus confirm the impugned judgment granting the decree of divorce between the parties dissolving their marriage. What do the legal experts say? What is the significance of this judgement? Mental Cruelty defined and applied: The court upheld the Family Court's divorce decree, finding that the wife's derogatory remarks (e.g., 'Kempa, Nikhatu') about the husband's physical disability constituted mental cruelty, rendering cohabitation intolerable. Citing V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, the court emphasized that mental cruelty is context-specific, assessed based on the parties' social, educational, and cultural backgrounds, and includes conduct causing significant mental pain. The court upheld the Family Court's divorce decree, finding that the wife's derogatory remarks (e.g., 'Kempa, Nikhatu') about the husband's physical disability constituted mental cruelty, rendering cohabitation intolerable. Citing V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, the court emphasized that mental cruelty is context-specific, assessed based on the parties' social, educational, and cultural backgrounds, and includes conduct causing significant mental pain. Protection of dignity: The judgment highlights judicial sensitivity to protecting individuals with disabilities from humiliation within marriage. The wife's remarks targeting the husband's physical infirmity were deemed a clear instance of mental cruelty, setting a precedent for cases involving personal vulnerabilities. The judgment highlights judicial sensitivity to protecting individuals with disabilities from humiliation within marriage. The wife's remarks targeting the husband's physical infirmity were deemed a clear instance of mental cruelty, setting a precedent for cases involving personal vulnerabilities. Financial claims deferred: The court left claims for permanent alimony and Streedhan open under Sections 25 and 27, citing insufficient evidence of the parties' financial status. This reinforces the necessity of documented financial details to resolve maintenance and property disputes. The court left claims for permanent alimony and Streedhan open under Sections 25 and 27, citing insufficient evidence of the parties' financial status. This reinforces the necessity of documented financial details to resolve maintenance and property disputes. Statutory limits on divorce: The court reiterated that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a standalone ground for divorce under Indian law, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory grounds like cruelty, despite prolonged separation (since 25 March 2018). 1. The Expanding Definition of Mental Cruelty 2. Alimony Deferred, Not Denied: The Court confirmed that ridiculing a spouse for physical disabilities constitutes mental cruelty, giving husbands a strong legal footing under Section 13(1)(i-a) to seek divorce. The wife's request for permanent alimony was denied for lack of financial disclosure, but the judgment hints that fault-based conduct like cruelty can influence alimony decisions, especially if the claimant is the offending party. The verdict reinforces that mental cruelty is not gender-specific. By citing V. Bhagat and Samar Ghosh, the Court reiterated that both husbands and wives have equal legal protection against abusive conduct in marriage. This case strengthens the evidentiary and judicial roadmap for similar future claims, promoting consistency in how courts evaluate emotional abuse and verbal cruelty in matrimonial disputes. What did the Supreme Court of India say about mental cruelty of husband 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, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they were 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.' On May 5, 2025, the Odisha High Court upheld a family court's ruling stating that if a wife passes negative mocking remarks about her husband 's physical disabilities, it constitutes mental cruelty, allowing the husband to seek a divorce. The family court had also ruled that this divorce should be granted without any permanent alimony for the wife, which sparked the dispute. The wife was seeking a permanent alimony and the return of her Streedhan properties. There was no contention regarding the divorce the High Court kept the alimony question open and advised the wife to bring up the alimony and Streedhan issue under Sections 25 and 27 in the family wife had challenged the claim that her remarks about her husband's physical condition constituted mental cruelty. She said before the Odisha High Court that it has not been proved that her comments inflicted mental cruelty on her Odisha High Court looked into her claims and noted that several witnesses have verified that the wife had passed comments about her husband's physical infirmity, calling him 'Kempa, Nikhatu' and this fact hasn't been High Court also said: 'The Wife making such statements against the Husband towards his physical infirmity definitely is causing mental pain. Such behaviour by the wife towards the husband discloses her thought and respect towards the husband.'However, the High Court said that under Section 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife can file another case in family court with regard to grant of permanent alimony and return of Streedhan properties. Hence with this judgement, the High Court confirmed the divorce decree but did not decide on the alimony out the details below to understand why the husband got a divorce (on ground of cruelty) without having to pay alimony, although later the High Court advised the wife to bring up the alimony and Streedhan issue under Sections 25 and 27 in the family to the order of the Odisha High Court dated May 5, 2025, here's the timeline of events:The wife filed an appeal in High Court against only the alimony Odisha High Court said:The Odisha High Court said:Final judgement:'At this stage, with regard to grant of permanent alimony and return of Streedhan properties, as claimed by the Appellant-Wife, are left open to her to be agitated before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri in terms of Sections 25 & 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. We say so for the reason that, there is no material produced on record with regard to income of the Husband or the Wife and in absence of any material, we are unable to decide the question of permanent alimony here. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.'Pallavi Pratap, Managing Partner, Pratap & Co. says: 'This judgment is significant because cruelty is proven against the wife. Very rarely do we see such judgments. Although questions involving permanent alimony and Streedhan have been kept open, I see this as a major breakthrough. Traditionally laws in India have favoured women but increasingly such judgments indicate that men are now also seen to be victims.'ET Wealth Online has asked various experts about what could be the significance of this judgement, here's what they said:The Orissa High Court's reasoning aligns with the Supreme Court's stance in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, where it was held that mental cruelty includes not only overt abuse but also sustained false or reckless allegations that damage a spouse's dignity and professional standing. The Court clarified that even without a judicial finding of falsity, defamatory complaints especially to employers in sensitive services can inflict serious harm and amount to cruelty sufficient for divorce. Together, these rulings affirm that men enduring emotional and reputational harm in marriage have equal legal protection and High Court of Orissa's ruling is a landmark decision in Indian matrimonial law, affirming mental cruelty as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Its significance lies in the following:Chopra adds: 'The judgment offers critical guidance for husbands in matrimonial disputes under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Husbands seeking divorce on grounds of mental cruelty must substantiate claims with robust evidence, such as witness testimonies or documented instances of abusive conduct, as demonstrated by the husband's un-rebutted testimony and corroboration in this case. Parallel criminal proceedings, like the wife's Section 498-A IPC complaint, require strategic handling to avoid undermining the divorce petition. Husbands must disclose financial details proactively to address alimony claims equitably, as the court deferred such issues for lack of evidence. Prompt filing, as seen in the husband's 2019 petition, and prolonged separation can strengthen claims, though statutory grounds like cruelty remain paramount.'The decision is significant for two key legal reflections:The Court's recognition that repeated verbal humiliation targeting a spouse's physical infirmity can amount to mental cruelty marks a progressive interpretation of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This ruling reinforces the judicial stance that cruelty need not be physical or demonstrative; it can lie in sustained emotional degradation that renders cohabitation insufferable. The reliance on landmark cases such as V. Bhagat and Samar Ghosh affirms that cruelty is to be understood contextually with sensitivity to social standing, emotional thresholds, and the nuances of modern Court also took a balanced view by reserving the wife's right to seek permanent alimony separately, reinforcing that financial determinations must be evidence-based and procedurally sound. By reserving the Wife's right to claim permanent alimony and Streedhan under Sections 25 and 27of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court has underscored the principle that equitable relief must be substantiated with financial disclosures. This careful balancing ensures that alimony is neither presumed nor denied in vacuum, but determined on evidentiary case not only affirms the rights of husbands under cruelty provisions often viewed from a wife-centric lens but also sets a judicial precedent that verbal cruelty rooted in physical shaming is intolerable and actionable. Here's some key legal takeaways:The present decision holds immense significance since it not only recognizes mental cruelty within the definition of cruelty but also considers the aspersions made by the wife against the husband in relation to his physical infirmity as being under the ambit of mental cruelty. The key takeaway from the decision is that even in cases of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty, however, the same does not dispense cogent evidence and such allegations must be High Court cited the Supreme Court in the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs), (1994) 1 SCC 337 where it was held:
The Hindu
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Odisha's SEBC reservation begins with 11.25% quota in higher education, stops short of professional fields
The Mohan Majhi government recently approved an 11.25% reservation in admissions for students from Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC) in State-owned and State-funded higher education institutions — a move seen both as the Bharatiya Janata Party's bid to champion the OBC cause and attempt to address the long-standing aspirations of Odisha's largest demographic segment. For the first time, students belonging to the SEBC will benefit from a form of reservation in education. Both activists and political leaders have described the 11.25% reservation as a low-hanging fruit for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government to seize. They argued that the successive governments had long lacked the political will to correct the historical injustice and grant SEBCs the reservation they deserved. OBC quota in employment The OBC reservation has witnessed a chequered implementation in the State. Odisha implemented a 27% reservation for OBC/SEBC in jobs in 1994 and this continued until 2007, when the Odisha High Court dismissed a writ petition, upholding the Odisha Tribunal's 1998 judgment that nullified the provision in the absence of quantifiable data on OBC population. The tribunal had referred to the 1992-landmark decision in Indira Sahwney case by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court that laid down the rule that Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste and OBC reservation cannot exceed the 50% threshold in employment. The OBC reservation in employment fell to 11.25% as the SC and ST population had been enjoying reservation proportionate to their population – ST (22.5%) and SC (16.25%). While all these were happening, reservations in education for SEBC students, which many other States have followed, did not get the attention. Former Union Minister and veteran Congress leader Srikant Jena says States like Tamil Nadu and Telangana have OBC reservation in education to the tune of 50% and 42%, respectively, while Bihar, Kerala, and Maharashtra are providing above 30% reservations to OBCs in education. 'What prevented successive governments in Odisha from providing reservations to OBC/SEBC students to pursue education is a mystery. The OBCs are both socially and economically backward in the State,' he said. Not in professional courses The recent Cabinet approval for 11.25% SEBC reservation in education pertains to four departments - Higher Education, School and Mass Education, Odia Language, Literature and Culture, and Sports and Youth Services department from the current academic year – 2025-26. The government stated that in line with National Education Policy, 2020, the move aims to promote access, equity and inclusion, increase the Gross Enrollment Ratio and enhance opportunities for marginalized and disadvantaged communities in Odisha. Opposition political parties, however, accused the Mohan Majhi government of betraying the OBC population by denying reservations in professional education including medical and engineering education where job and self-employment prospects are higher than general education. The BJP, on the other hand, argued that no previous government in Odisha had attempted to provide OBC reservation in education, and accused critics of merely trying to find loopholes. Opposition leaders said of total 2,74,343 seats available in degree colleges, 2,04,759 students had taken admission while 69,584 seats were lying vacant in 2024-25 academic session. 'Providing reservations to OBC students in general education does not serve any purpose. The government could have at least thought of providing reservation in medical, engineering and other professional streams,' Chidananda Jena, a journalist who has moved the Orissa High Court with a prayer to extend the SEBC reservation to professional courses. The petitioner said the BJP government could have gone beyond 11.25% as nowhere in Indira Sahwney judgment, the Apex Court had capped the reservation at 50% in education. Mr. Jena said despite OBC/SEBCs comprising 54% of Odisha's population, these students had received 0% reservation in education instead of the mandated 27% and over 7,000 OBC/SEBC students have lost medical seats this year because of reservation not applying to professional courses. OBC demographics and politics Although leaders across political parties have long claimed that OBCs make up nearly 54% of Odisha's population, they have lacked concrete data to support this assertion. In 2023, the then Naveen Patnaik-led government set up the Odisha State Commission for Backward Classes, headed by retired Orissa High Court judge Justice Raghunath Biswal, to determine the actual status of the OBC population in the State. While the Commission did conduct a survey, it lacked rigorous scientific methodology. Nevertheless, it estimated that 39.31% of Odisha's population belonged to the SEBCs. The findings of the Justice Biswal Commission were never made public by the then-ruling Biju Janata Dal government. According to the survey, 37.6% of the SEBC population had attained only primary-level education, while 10.1% were illiterate. Nearly half—49.6%—had low levels of education, either up to primary or below matriculation. About 22% had completed matriculation, intermediate-level education, or held ITI/diploma qualifications. Only 7.9% were college graduates or postgraduates, and just 1.6% held professional degrees. A mere 0.5% had education levels beyond post-graduation. Mr. Jena stated that although the Commission's report did not fully capture the status of OBCs in the State, it provided a glimpse. 'While just 6% of the general category population (Economically Weaker Section) benefits from 10% reservation, SEBCs—who are both economically and socially disadvantaged—are left with only 11.25% and are denied proportionate representation,' he said.
United News of India
25-04-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
Odisha establishes 46 new Civil Judge Courts
States » East Bhubaneswar , Apr 26 (UNI )The Odisha Government had established 46 new Civil Judge Courts (Junior Division) in the state. These courts were established at various places in Balasore,Sambalpur,Rayagada,Keonjhar, Mayurbhanj, Jagatsinghpur,Sundargarh,Sonepur, Cuttack, Bargarh, Khurdha,Jharsuguda ,Jajpur,Kendrapara, Bhadrakk, Dhenkanal,Bolangir and Ganjam district. The state government has constituted these courts in consultation with the Odisha High Court. The notification has been issued after Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi approved the proposed amendment. UNI DP SJC More News Meghalaya filmmaker Kurbah wins big at Moscow International Film Festival 25 Apr 2025 | 4:43 PM Shillong, Apr 25 (UNI) Two-time National Film Award (India) winner and self-taught filmmaker, Pradip Kurbah from Meghalaya, won two major honours at the Moscow International Film Festival (MIFF) 2025 for his Khasi film 'Ha Lyngkha Bneng.' Kurbah's film 'Ha Lyngkha Bneng', or 'The Elysian Field' in English, tells the story of a secluded village in Meghalaya gradually being deserted due to urban migration. It explores themes of loneliness, resilience, and the strength of human connections through the lens of friendship and survival. see more.. 25 Apr 2025 | 4:42 PM Bhubaneswar , Apr 26 (UNI )The Odisha Government had established 46 new Civil Judge Courts (Junior Division) in the state. see more.. AIIMS Bhubaneswar conducts robotic knee replacement surgery 25 Apr 2025 | 4:34 PM Bhubaneswar, Apr 25 (UNI) AIIMS Bhubaneswar has achieved a significant milestone with the introduction of its state-of-the-art Robotic Knee Replacement facility. see more.. 25 Apr 2025 | 4:03 PM Kolkata, Apr 25 (UNI) Union minister Sukanta Majumdar on Thursday assured the family members of a BSF jawan, detained by the Pakistani Ranger after accidentally crossing the border on Wednesday, that every effort was being taken to get his release at the earliest. see more.. Police evacuate stranded tourists after mud-slides block roads in North Sikkim 25 Apr 2025 | 3:17 PM Gangtok, Apr 25 (UNI) Over 1400 stranded tourists, mostly from West Bengal, were on Thursday evacuated after they got stuck following heavy mudslides and rockfall, triggered by downpour in North Sikkim's upper region of Lachen and lachung, about 110 km from Gangtok, official sources said. see more..
