1. Mr. Chakravarty, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband and submits, the appeal be heard. His client is aggrieved by judgment dated 7th February, 2023 of the Family Court dismissing his petition for dissolution of the marriage, while directing ₹10,000/- per month as maintenance for respondent-wife and ₹4,000/- per month for the minor son.

2. Respondent goes unrepresented. Order sheet bears record of sufficiency of service on she having refused to accept the postal article bearing notice of the appeal. In addition, direction for substituted service was complied with on the notice duly published in the newspaper. Furthermore, we had directed Registry to communicate website copy of our order dated 2nd April, 2024 to Mr. Bijay Kumar Pradhan, learned advocate, Balasore Bar Association and lay note confirming the communication. In this context we reproduce below paragraph 2 from our subsequent order dated 25th April, 2024.

2. We reproduce below the direction from said order dated 2nd April, 2024.

“3. ……… Registry is directed to communicate website copy of this order through Registrar, Civil Court, Balasore to Mr. Bijay Kumar Pradhan, learned advocate of Balasore Bar Association and lay note confirming the communication. It is made clear, we will proceed with hearing of the appeal on adjourned date, irrespective of representation/ appearance by respondent-wife.”

Registrar Civil Court, Balasore has by letter dated 22nd April, 2024 said there was due service. We find the learned advocate served had made endorsement in acknowledging receipt on 22nd April, 2024. We reproduce below the endorsement.

“I would like to intimate you that I have neither any communication address nor contact with the Respondent Sunita Das @ Samal.”

… … …”

3. Mr. Chakravarty submits, cruelty was ground taken. Respondent was cruel to his client by firstly, falsely alleging illicit relationship with one Aparajita Giri, a married woman. Second ground of cruelty is successive attempts to commit suicide. He submits further that these two grounds are based on facts as will appear from the written statement filed by respondent and questions/suggestions put to his client in crossexamination. There is no dispute the allegation was made. It was not proved as a fact. Hence, a false allegation. There is also no dispute on respondent’s attempts to commit suicide.

4. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, reported in AIR (2013) SC 2176, paragraph 14, reproduced below.

“14. Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh, we could add a few more. Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.”

(emphasis supplied)

He then relies on earlier judgment of said Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511. He submits further, respondent went so far as to turn sister of his client against him. After evidence was closed from side of his client, respondent influenced his sister to facilitate her to return to his parent’s house. So much so, the sister was RW-2, deposing from side of respondent. After impugned judgment was passed, respondent again left.

5. He then relies on Narendra v. K. Meena, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 455 to submit, threatening to commit suicide is also a ground of mental cruelty. Paragraph 14 from Indian Kanoon print is reproduced below.

“14. Applying the said ratio to the facts of this case, we are inclined to hold that the unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the Respondent wife and the threats and attempt to commit suicide by her amounted to mental cruelty and therefore, the marriage deserves to be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground stated in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.”

6. In the written statement respondent had clearly alleged in paragraph 7 that she came to know through electronic media including messages from mobile of her husband that he had illicit relationship with Aparajita Giri, wife of Arun Dwari of village Irda, PS-Basta, Balasore. She says that is why she left petitioner and the matrimonial home on 23rd June, 2017. All that was asked to petitioner in cross-examination regarding his alleged illicit relation is as will appear from paragraph 27 in his deposition dated 15th October, 2019 in cross-examination. It is reproduced below.

“27. I do not know who is Arun Dwari. I do not remember any girl named as Aparajita Giri to whom I was teaching her as private tutor. I have a friend named Keshab Mohanty who used to work in Kerala and I met him in court today who has also come to the court for his own divorce case.”

We are not interested in petitioner’s case on respondent attempting suicide. The pleading was insufficient though there was attempt at subsequently developing the contention in evidence.

7. There were many instances given by the Supreme Court that may amount to mental cruelty in the facts and circumstances of a case. In Samar Ghosh (supra) several instances were given and those instances were added to in K. Srinivas (supra). In reproduced above paragraph 14 from the judgment, law declared is clear that making unsubstantiated false allegation, inter alia, impugning character of a spouse, amounts to mental cruelty. In an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 334, the law was developed by, inter alia, paragraph 7 in the judgment, reproduced below.

“7. The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that leveling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross- examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible.”

(emphasis supplied)

As such, appellant is successful in proving before us there was mental cruelty caused to him by respondent in making false allegation imputing his character.

8. We see from impugned judgment there were directions to pay ₹10,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent and ₹4,000/- for the minor son. In view of above, we reverse impugned judgment to dissolve by a decree of divorce the marriage solemnized on 30th April, 2011 on ground of cruelty. In so doing we direct permanent alimony be paid by appellant to respondent at ₹20,00,000/-. There must be compliance by 30th October, 2024. We direct further that appellant will go on paying maintenance for his son at ₹10,000/- per month, to also be paid to respondent till he attains majority. Subsequent thereto appellant will remain obliged to pay for higher education expenses of his son, as will be required. We make it clear, these directions are on observations in the context made.

9. The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of.