“The repeated threat of suicide or violence is not merely misconduct; it is an insidious form of emotional blackmail and psychological oppression,” the Court said.
The Orissa High Court recently dismissed a woman’s appeal against the divorce granted to her husband, citing her filing of 45 criminal cases against him and his family.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice BP Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed that the sheer volume of cases suggested a pattern of vexatious litigation rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.
“The frequency and nature of these cases go beyond a reasonable exercise of legal rights and instead demonstrate a calculated effort to exert pressure and inflict mental agony upon the Respondent. Therefore, the contention that multiple cases alone cannot amount to mental cruelty fails when viewed against the sheer extent of litigation initiated by the Appellant and the prolonged harassment faced by the Respondent and his family,” the Court observed.
The couple married in 2003 in Cuttack, but their relationship soon faced challenges. The husband alleged that his wife pressured him to sever ties with his parents, sought financial control by insisting on being the sole nominee in his insurance policies, and frequently engaged in conflicts.
In 2009, the husband filed for divorce. In 2023, a family court granted the divorce, directing him to pay ₹63 lakh as permanent alimony. The wife later appealed the decision in the High Court.
The Court rejected her argument that filing multiple cases does not amount to mental cruelty.
The Bench clarified that while filing cases alone may not always constitute cruelty, abusing the legal system to cause persistent harassment and mental distress does qualify as mental cruelty.
The Court also highlighted several instances of physical violence and abusive behavior by the wife toward her husband and his family.
It noted that when a spouse repeatedly threatens self-harm or engages in violence, it erodes the foundation of marriage, fostering an environment of fear and emotional turmoil.
While an attempted suicide may arise from desperation, the Court observed that repeated threats of self-harm are often a calculated tactic used to manipulate and exert psychological control over the other spouse.
“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,” the Court said.
The Court further observed that the evidence on record paints a poignant picture of a marriage that started with hope but gradually descended into a cycle of emotional turmoil, intimidation, and relentless legal disputes.
“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,” it added.
In conclusion, the Court stressed that the law cannot compel an individual to stay in a marriage that has become a source of suffering and distress.
While dismissing the wife’s appeal, it affirmed the man’s right to seek peace and emotional well-being, which could only be achieved by dissolving the fractured relationship.
