Cuttack: Repeated threats of suicide or violence by a wife is not merely misconduct but an insidious form of emotional blackmail and psychological oppression of the husband, Orissa high court has observed while upholding a family court’s order of dissolution of marriage in a divorce case.
“Repeated threats to commit suicide, or worse, to harm the spouse and their family members, transcend mere emotional outbursts, they represent a gross misuse of emotional vulnerability and a blatant form of psychological warfare. The effect of such behaviour is not just confined to the four walls of the matrimonial home but leaves a lasting scar on the mental health and emotional stability of the aggrieved spouse,” a two-judge bench of Justices B P Routray and Chittaranjan Dash stated in its March 19 ruling.
The bench was hearing a case challenging a family court order granting divorce to a couple who had got married in 2003. In 2009, the husband, who is in his 50s, sought divorce on grounds of cruelty. He claimed that his wife’s conduct had made it impossible for him to continue with the marriage. His grievances included constant quarrels, financial control, repeated threats of suicide and the forced eviction of his elderly parents from their home by his wife with help from local goons.
On Aug 7, 2023, the family court in Cuttack granted dissolution of marriage subject to payment of Rs 63 lakh as permanent alimony by the husband, who is the CEO of an IT company and is based abroad. The woman, in her 40s, challenged the family court’s order in the HC the same year, seeking restitution of her conjugal life.
While dismissing the woman’s appeal, the bench said the institution of marriage rests upon the pillars of trust, compassion and mutual respect that form the very essence of a harmonious marital bond.
“When coupled with physical aggression and public humiliation, as seen in the present case, the cumulative effect is devastating, irreparably corroding the marital bond. Furthermore, such acts cannot be brushed aside as isolated emotional expressions,” the bench noted, adding, “Such conduct crosses the boundaries of personal conflict and touches upon the very core of harassment, making it impossible for the aggrieved spouse (husband) to continue leading a peaceful and dignified marital life.”
In light of the findings of the family court, the bench observed that the wife’s actions, viewed collectively, meet the threshold of mental cruelty. “The law cannot compel a person to endure a marriage that has become a source of suffering and torment, and the husband is entitled to the peace and emotional relief that can only be found in the dissolution of this broken bond,” it added, while agreeing with the permanent alimony that the family court in Cuttack had decided.