An Odisha born husband who was married on May 11, 2003 experienced a very challenging time in his life when his wife persistently harassed and threatened him with suicide for about 15 years. The irony is he had supported his wife to get an MSC degree from the New York Institute of Technology, U.S.A. The mental health of this now middle-aged husband broke down to such a degree, that he resigned from his job at TCS ( Tata Consultancy Services) and chose to stay at home. The reason for his resignation, as written by him to the company’s HR was constant and repeated harassment, suicidal threats and physical cruelty performed by his wife.
At one point things became so bad that he had to seek help from Thailand’s Royal Police in Bangkok when his wife came to his workplace and openly threatened to commit suicide. This pattern of similar incidents did not stop here as she followed him to Kolkata airport when he was taking a flight to Bhubaneshwar and threatened him and his family. The Kolkata airport police had to interfere to stop this.
At another violent instance, the husband claimed that when he was posted in Dallas, Texas, United States of America (USA) for job purposes, his wife hit him so hard with a music system speaker that he had to be admitted to the emergency ward of Parkland Health & Hospital System in Dallas.
Even after all of the ordeal, when the husband filed an application for divorce in 2009, her lawyers said she still wanted to live with him and pleaded with the court for restitution of conjugal rights. She contended that her marital rights had been unfairly denied. On one hand she said this in court but she also filed a total of 45 FIRs (First Information Report) against him with the police.
The Cuttack family court and Odisha High Court both viewed that her actions meet the threshold of mental cruelty as defined under Section 13(1)(i-a) and also said that the law cannot compel a person to endure a marriage that has become a source of suffering and torment. The Odisha High Court also said that this husband is entitled to the peace and emotional relief that can only be found in the dissolution of this broken bond and hence he should get divorce. However, a permanent alimony of Rs 63 lakh was awarded by the courts. The Odisha High Court said that repeated threats become tools of coercion and is an insidious form of emotional blackmail.
Read below to know more about why the divorce case that was filed in 2009 dragged on for multiple years and why Odisha High Court gave relief to the husband on March 19, 2025. The legal analysis and reasonings can help in your own similar case.
How did this divorce battle start and went on for so many years
According to the final judgement by Odisha High Court dated March 19, 2025 here is a timeline of events:
Cuttack family court grants divorce with Rs 63 lakh permanent alimony
On August 7, 2023 the Cuttack Family Court granted divorce subject to the payment of Rs 63 lakh permanent alimony and dismissed the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
Husband resigned from TCS job due to persistent harassment by wife
The Husband’s lawyer submitted a copy of his Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) resignation email dated August 30, 2024 in court.
The court noted: “The Respondent-Husband has submitted a copy of his resignation email from 30th August, 2024, wherein he explicitly cited his wife’s repeated interruptions in his day-to-day work life at TCS, as the sole reason for his resignation. In the email, he conveyed that the Appellant’s persistent attempts to contact him at his workplace not only disrupted his professional responsibilities but also created an uncomfortable environment for his colleagues and staff members.”
Wife filed appeal in Odisha High Court on the ground that her marital rights had been unfairly denied
The wife’s lawyers raised the following grounds for appeal against the order of Cuttack family court:
Odisha High Court in its judgement said:
Family Court’s investigation helps proving wife’s intention to gain the husband’s financial assets and sever his ties with his mother and father
The Odisha High Court placed reliance on the investigation of the Cuttack Family Court and said:
The Odisha High Court said:
Odisha High Court final judgement: Divorce granted on ground of mental cruelty to husband
The Odisha High Court said: “The Appellant’s (wife’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. The law cannot compel a person to endure a marriage that has become a source of suffering and torment, and the Respondent (husband) is entitled to the peace and emotional relief that can only be found in the dissolution of this broken bond.”
Odisha High Courts stays Family Court order of Rs 63 lakh permanent alimony
The Odisha High Court said: “The permanent alimony of Rs 63,00,000 awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, is not to be interfered with. This amount seeks to strike a balance between providing the Appellant with reasonable financial security and ensuring that the Respondent is not unduly burdened, thereby upholding the principles of fairness and equity in matrimonial disputes.”
Arnaz Hathiram, a digital media professional, says: "This judgment proves how matrimonial laws have largely turned into sheer harassment for the men. In the current case, the husband spent almost 16-years at lower court & high court in total, during which his wife filed 45 FIRs to inflict mental agony upon him. Both courts have clearly documented instances of how husband had been subjected to cruelty by wife."
What are some key legal takeaways from this judgement?
ET Wealth Online has asked various lawyers about what might be some key legal takeaways from this judgement. Here's what they said:
Tushar Agarwal, Founder & Managing Partner, C.L.A.P. JURIS - Advocates & Solicitors: This Judgment has highlighted how women protection laws are unfortunately being misused by women itself. This judgment has categorically held that filing end number of cases can amount to mental harassment and cruelty and the party filing such numerous cases cannot take the shield that it is the legal right to file cases for seeking legal remedy. It has to be seen whether such cases are being filed for legitimate reliefs or they are filed owing to personal vendetta as a pressure tactic to extort more money. Further the key takeaway from this judgment is that once the sacred relationship of marriage becomes a battlefield full of legal harassment, financial exploitation and emotional distress, then seeking the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights becomes infructuous as the trust and affection between the couple can never be revived.
Further this judgment has upheld that providing alimony to the wife is a duty of the husband irrespective of any sort of harassment by the wife but the amount of alimony should be reasonable striking a balance between the financial security of the wife and financial capacity of the husband .
Shashank Agarwal, Advocate, Delhi High Court: This judgment once elaborately explains the nature of the bond of love and marriage, how this sacred bond may break over time and lead to a situation within the meaning of “cruelty”. Merely saying that a party to a marriage is attempting to reconcile and rehabilitate the marriage is not sufficient for restitution of marriage, rather it is the circumstances and the course of lives in marriage that need to be seen before granting restitution of marriage or divorce.
As for the permanent alimony, this judgment again explains the criteria as per which permanent alimony can be granted keeping in mind the income, assets, liabilities of the parties, educational and social backgrounds of the parties, etc
Yatharth Rohila, Advocate & Partner, Aeddhaas Legal LLP: The Orissa High Court in Madhusmita Samanta v. Rajesh Singh (2025) held that filing multiple litigations against the husband and his family amounts to mental cruelty. It further observed that repeated instances of blackmail and harassment caused severe mental agony, leading to an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Significantly, the Court clarified that merely filing a restitution of conjugal rights petition does not by itself demonstrate a genuine intent to reconcile — rather, the overall conduct of the spouse throughout the proceedings must be considered. The judgment cautions against misuse of protective laws to coerce or malign the other spouse, noting that such actions can backfire and weaken the very laws intended to protect.
( Originally published on Apr 04, 2025 )
At one point things became so bad that he had to seek help from Thailand’s Royal Police in Bangkok when his wife came to his workplace and openly threatened to commit suicide. This pattern of similar incidents did not stop here as she followed him to Kolkata airport when he was taking a flight to Bhubaneshwar and threatened him and his family. The Kolkata airport police had to interfere to stop this.
At another violent instance, the husband claimed that when he was posted in Dallas, Texas, United States of America (USA) for job purposes, his wife hit him so hard with a music system speaker that he had to be admitted to the emergency ward of Parkland Health & Hospital System in Dallas.
Even after all of the ordeal, when the husband filed an application for divorce in 2009, her lawyers said she still wanted to live with him and pleaded with the court for restitution of conjugal rights. She contended that her marital rights had been unfairly denied. On one hand she said this in court but she also filed a total of 45 FIRs (First Information Report) against him with the police.
The Cuttack family court and Odisha High Court both viewed that her actions meet the threshold of mental cruelty as defined under Section 13(1)(i-a) and also said that the law cannot compel a person to endure a marriage that has become a source of suffering and torment. The Odisha High Court also said that this husband is entitled to the peace and emotional relief that can only be found in the dissolution of this broken bond and hence he should get divorce. However, a permanent alimony of Rs 63 lakh was awarded by the courts. The Odisha High Court said that repeated threats become tools of coercion and is an insidious form of emotional blackmail.
Read below to know more about why the divorce case that was filed in 2009 dragged on for multiple years and why Odisha High Court gave relief to the husband on March 19, 2025. The legal analysis and reasonings can help in your own similar case.
How did this divorce battle start and went on for so many years
According to the final judgement by Odisha High Court dated March 19, 2025 here is a timeline of events:
- On May 11, 2003 they married in Cuttack, Odisha. After the marriage, they resided in their matrimonial house in Haripur, Jagatsinghpur, Odisha, and subsequently resided in Bhubaneswar, Bangalore, USA, Japan, etc.
- Soon after marriage their relationship became strained. The husband alleged that she pressured him to sever ties with his parents, demanded financial control by insisting on being the sole nominee in his insurance policies, and frequently engaged in quarrels.
- On advice of the elders they shifted to their Bhubaneswar home. However, the violent behaviour continued, resulting in facial injuries to the husband. Their Bhubaneswar house’s neighbour corroborated the occurrence of this assault and the resulting nose and facial injuries.
- On November 26, 2006 when he was working in Dallas, she allegedly struck him with a speaker of their music system, causing a scalp laceration. The hospital medical records confirmed the husband being admitted to the emergency ward of Parkland Health & Hospital System due to this injury.
- On December 11, 2008 she along with her parents and some goons (anti-social elements) arrived at her in-laws village house and then grabbed her mother-in-law by her neck and attempted to choke her. The father in-law, arriving at the scene, tried to rescue his wife but was confronted by her and her accomplices.
- On November 11, 2009 she returned to her in-laws house with her sister. On November 13, 2009 she locked her in-laws out of the house forcing them to spend the night in the streets and later they filed a police report about this. This resulted in a protection order and police intervention to restore their residence.
- The testimonies of the neighbours and independent witnesses corroborated these events in November 2009, providing independent evidence of her violent and threatening behaviour.
- In the meantime she filed multiple FIRs with the police totalling the tally to 45 FIRs.
- Soon after this the husband filed a divorce petition in Cuttack family court.
Cuttack family court grants divorce with Rs 63 lakh permanent alimony
On August 7, 2023 the Cuttack Family Court granted divorce subject to the payment of Rs 63 lakh permanent alimony and dismissed the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
Husband resigned from TCS job due to persistent harassment by wife
The Husband’s lawyer submitted a copy of his Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) resignation email dated August 30, 2024 in court.
The court noted: “The Respondent-Husband has submitted a copy of his resignation email from 30th August, 2024, wherein he explicitly cited his wife’s repeated interruptions in his day-to-day work life at TCS, as the sole reason for his resignation. In the email, he conveyed that the Appellant’s persistent attempts to contact him at his workplace not only disrupted his professional responsibilities but also created an uncomfortable environment for his colleagues and staff members.”
Wife filed appeal in Odisha High Court on the ground that her marital rights had been unfairly denied
The wife’s lawyers raised the following grounds for appeal against the order of Cuttack family court:
- The dispute arose not from any cruelty inflicted by her but due to the husband’s deliberate desertion and abandonment of the marital relationship.
- Her bona fide intention to resume cohabitation was clearly demonstrated by filing an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
- The allegation that she forcibly ousted the husband’s parents is baseless and unsupported by independent evidence, with the court relying only on the husband’s family’s testimonies.
- Additionally, the multiple legal cases filed by her were a legitimate exercise of her legal rights and cannot be construed as cruelty or harassment.
- The Court’s award of Rs 63 lakh as permanent alimony is grossly inadequate considering the husband’s substantial income and assets.
- She contended that her marital rights had been unfairly denied
Odisha High Court in its judgement said:
- 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.
- 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.
Family Court’s investigation helps proving wife’s intention to gain the husband’s financial assets and sever his ties with his mother and father
The Odisha High Court placed reliance on the investigation of the Cuttack Family Court and said:
- The Court took note of the fact that, in the absence of the husband, the father of the wife took over possession of the matrimonial house and let it out on rent without the husband’s consent, depriving him of his rightful access to his property.
- Furthermore, the wife demanded that the nomination for the husband’s LIC insurance policy be changed in her favour, replacing the husband’s mother, demonstrating her intent to sever the husband’s ties with his family and gain financial control over his assets.
- The Court also placed weight on the incident where the wife allegedly ousted the husband’s elderly parents from their home, an act that not only caused emotional distress but also further underscored the wife’s desire to exercise dominion over the matrimonial property and alienate the husband from his family.
The Odisha High Court said:
- Filing for restitution of conjugal rights while simultaneously engaging in acts of legal harassment, financial exploitation, and emotional distress against the husband cannot be reconciled as efforts to restore the marital relationship.
- Rather, the restitution petition appeared to be a strategic countermeasure to resist the divorce proceedings.
- The Court observed that her actions pushed the husband to a point where continuing the marriage would be unjust and emotionally damaging, thereby warranting its dissolution
- The evidence paints a heart-wrenching picture of a marriage that once held promise but gradually descended into a cycle of emotional turmoil, intimidation, and relentless litigation.
- From physical assaults and verbal abuse to repeated acts of financial control and emotional blackmail, the Respondent was subjected to a state of perpetual distress, where fear and anxiety overshadowed any hope of marital peace.
- The Appellant’s contradictory legal actions filing for restitution of conjugal rights while simultaneously initiating domestic violence cases and excessive criminal complaints only deepened the emotional chasm between the parties, leaving the Respondent with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.
- The wife’s conduct, far from reflecting a desire to rebuild the marriage, displayed a deliberate pattern of harassment and control, causing the Respondent severe mental agony and emotional exhaustion.
- The prolonged separation, coupled with acts of physical violence, humiliation, and calculated financial exploitation, has rendered the marital bond beyond repair.
Odisha High Court final judgement: Divorce granted on ground of mental cruelty to husband
The Odisha High Court said: “The Appellant’s (wife’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. The law cannot compel a person to endure a marriage that has become a source of suffering and torment, and the Respondent (husband) is entitled to the peace and emotional relief that can only be found in the dissolution of this broken bond.”
Odisha High Courts stays Family Court order of Rs 63 lakh permanent alimony
The Odisha High Court said: “The permanent alimony of Rs 63,00,000 awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, is not to be interfered with. This amount seeks to strike a balance between providing the Appellant with reasonable financial security and ensuring that the Respondent is not unduly burdened, thereby upholding the principles of fairness and equity in matrimonial disputes.”
Arnaz Hathiram, a digital media professional, says: "This judgment proves how matrimonial laws have largely turned into sheer harassment for the men. In the current case, the husband spent almost 16-years at lower court & high court in total, during which his wife filed 45 FIRs to inflict mental agony upon him. Both courts have clearly documented instances of how husband had been subjected to cruelty by wife."
What are some key legal takeaways from this judgement?
ET Wealth Online has asked various lawyers about what might be some key legal takeaways from this judgement. Here's what they said:
Tushar Agarwal, Founder & Managing Partner, C.L.A.P. JURIS - Advocates & Solicitors: This Judgment has highlighted how women protection laws are unfortunately being misused by women itself. This judgment has categorically held that filing end number of cases can amount to mental harassment and cruelty and the party filing such numerous cases cannot take the shield that it is the legal right to file cases for seeking legal remedy. It has to be seen whether such cases are being filed for legitimate reliefs or they are filed owing to personal vendetta as a pressure tactic to extort more money. Further the key takeaway from this judgment is that once the sacred relationship of marriage becomes a battlefield full of legal harassment, financial exploitation and emotional distress, then seeking the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights becomes infructuous as the trust and affection between the couple can never be revived.
Further this judgment has upheld that providing alimony to the wife is a duty of the husband irrespective of any sort of harassment by the wife but the amount of alimony should be reasonable striking a balance between the financial security of the wife and financial capacity of the husband .
Shashank Agarwal, Advocate, Delhi High Court: This judgment once elaborately explains the nature of the bond of love and marriage, how this sacred bond may break over time and lead to a situation within the meaning of “cruelty”. Merely saying that a party to a marriage is attempting to reconcile and rehabilitate the marriage is not sufficient for restitution of marriage, rather it is the circumstances and the course of lives in marriage that need to be seen before granting restitution of marriage or divorce.
As for the permanent alimony, this judgment again explains the criteria as per which permanent alimony can be granted keeping in mind the income, assets, liabilities of the parties, educational and social backgrounds of the parties, etc
Yatharth Rohila, Advocate & Partner, Aeddhaas Legal LLP: The Orissa High Court in Madhusmita Samanta v. Rajesh Singh (2025) held that filing multiple litigations against the husband and his family amounts to mental cruelty. It further observed that repeated instances of blackmail and harassment caused severe mental agony, leading to an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Significantly, the Court clarified that merely filing a restitution of conjugal rights petition does not by itself demonstrate a genuine intent to reconcile — rather, the overall conduct of the spouse throughout the proceedings must be considered. The judgment cautions against misuse of protective laws to coerce or malign the other spouse, noting that such actions can backfire and weaken the very laws intended to protect.
( Originally published on Apr 04, 2025 )
You may also like
'Somebody had to pull the trigger': Donald Trump defends tariffs, says he reversed them because 'people were getting yippy'
Danny Beard's disgusting bedroom habit has Celebrity Big Brother star up all night
Celebrity Big Brother's Ella Rae Wise in tears as she shares real reason behind TV star boyfriend split
Katie Price's wildest health obsessions from 'disgusting' CBD cancer claim to 'oversized' veneers
Rio Ferdinand names new Champions League favourite after Arsenal and PSG wins
