Repeated Threat Of Suicide Or Violence Not Merely Misconduct But An Insidious Form Of Emotional Blackmail & Psychological Oppression: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court dismissed an Appeal filed by the wife against the Family Court’s Judgment granting divorce to the husband on the ground of mental cruelty.
The Orissa High Court held that the repeated threat of suicide or violence is not merely misconduct, but an ‘insidious’ form of emotional blackmail and psychological oppression.
The Court dismissed an Appeal filed by the wife against the Family Court’s Judgment granting divorce to the husband on the ground of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). While pointing out that the law cannot compel a person to endure a marriage that became a source of suffering and torment, the Court stated that the husband was entitled to the peace and emotional relief that can only be found in the dissolution of the “broken bond.”
A Division Bench of Justice BP Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held, “This Court is of the considered opinion that the repeated threat of suicide or violence is not merely misconduct; it is an insidious form of emotional blackmail and psychological oppression. Such conduct crosses the boundaries of personal conflict and touches upon the very core of harassment, making it impossible for the aggrieved spouse to continue leading a peaceful and dignified marital life.”
Advocate A.P. Bose appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Bibekananda Bhuyan represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The husband had filed for divorce citing constant quarrels, financial control, and an alleged forced eviction of his elderly parents by the wife. In response, the wife filed a Petition for restitution of conjugal rights, claiming that her husband had deserted her under parental influence. She argued that the Family Court had wrongly presumed mental cruelty, ignoring her genuine attempts at reconciliation.
The Family Court had granted divorce to the husband and dismissed the wife’s Petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court had held that the wife’s behavior, including harassment through multiple false cases, including over 45 FIRs, and financial manipulation, constituted mental cruelty.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court upheld the decision of the Family Court, noting that “Such a high volume of cases reflects a pattern of vexatious litigation rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.”
“It has to be noted that marriage is a partnership where both individuals are expected to nurture the bond with compassion and patience, even in times of disagreement or hardship. However, when one partner resorts to repeated threats of self-harm or violence, the very foundation of this sacred bond is shattered, giving rise to a climate of fear and emotional torment. While an attempt to commit suicide is an act of desperation, a repeated threat to do so is a calculated act of manipulation, often deployed to exert psychological control over the other spouse,” the Court explained.
“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,” the Bench remarked.
“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. In a relationship as intimate as marriage, repeated threats become tools of coercion, forcing the other spouse to remain trapped in a state of perpetual anxiety and emotional paralysis,” it stated.
Consequently, the Court held, “In light of these circumstances, the findings of the Family Court are rooted in sound legal reasoning and supported by overwhelming evidence. The Appellant’s actions, viewed collectively, meet the threshold of mental cruelty as defined under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned judgment granting divorce to the Respondent-Husband, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: X v. Y (MATA Nos. 315/316 of 2023)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate A.P. Bose
Respondent: Senior Advocate Bibekananda Bhuyan; Advocate S.S. Bhuyan
