Cuttack: A division bench of the Orissa High Court has affirmed a Family Court order dissolving a marriage on the basis of cruelty, holding that a legal marriage cannot survive when the core ingredients of trust, respect and companionship have disappeared.

High Court rejects husband’s petition

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, dismissed the husband’s challenge to the January 27, 2024 decree issued by the Rayagada Family Court. The petitioner contended that the facts did not warrant a divorce and even pointed to a later attempt at reconciliation.

Couple’s background

Both individuals are B‑Tech graduates employed in the IT sector. They were married according to Hindu rites on October 20, 2021, initially living in Visakhapatnam before relocating to Hyderabad. Shortly after the wedding, differences emerged, eventually leading the pair to live separately.

Court examines the marital breakdown

The wife filed a petition in the Family Court seeking a divorce, alleging both physical and mental cruelty. After reviewing the evidence, the Family Court concluded that cruelty was proved and granted the divorce. The husband contested this finding, arguing that the material did not justify ending the marriage and that his subsequent effort to reconcile should be taken into account.

The High Court, however, observed that a later reconciliation attempt cannot erase conduct that had already shattered the relationship. It reiterated that the divorce order rested on the cruelty demonstrated by the evidence.

Trust and companionship as marital foundations

The judges emphasized that mutual respect, trust, companionship and a willingness to make reasonable adjustments are not optional niceties but the very bedrock of a marital union. Ordinary spats, occasional arguments or the routine challenges of married life, they clarified, do not automatically constitute grounds for divorce. The behaviour must be so severe that co‑habitation becomes unreasonable.

The court also noted that mental cruelty often lacks direct documentary proof; its existence must be inferred from the overall context, the nature of the relationship and the parties’ conduct.

Mediation effort also fell short

The bench took note of a mediation session held on March 20, 2026, aimed at reconciling the spouses. The attempt failed to revive the relationship, and both parties reaffirmed their desire to part ways.

The High Court stressed that the divorce was upheld not merely because the couple lived apart or wished to separate, but because the cruelty established by the Family Court remained undisputed. Compelling the wife to resume the marriage would be unrealistic, given the loss of the essential foundation of trust and companionship.

Consequently, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s decree and dismissed the husband’s appeal in full.