Cuttack: A marriage cannot be preserved merely in its legal form when its substantive foundation of mutual trust, respect and companionship has substantially eroded, Orissa High Court has observed while upholding a divorce decree granted on grounds of cruelty.A division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash made the observation on Oct 1 while dismissing an appeal filed by a man challenging the Rayagada family court’s Jan 27, 2024, judgment dissolving his marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.The bench also took note of the couple’s appearance before it on March 20, 2026, when both expressed their desire to end the relationship despite an attempt at reconciliation.The couple, both BTech graduates working in the IT sector, had got married on Oct 20, 2021. They initially lived together in Visakhapatnam and later shifted to Hyderabad. However, their matrimonial life soon became marked by allegations of physical and mental ill-treatment, serious confrontations, including with their families, loss of mutual confidence and eventual separation.The HC said marriage undoubtedly carries sanctity and courts should ordinarily endeavour to preserve it. But, it added, “the sanctity of marriage is not served by preserving only the legal form of the relationship when the substantive foundation of that relationship has been substantially eroded”.“Mutual respect, trust, companionship and a willingness to make reasonable adjustments are not peripheral attributes of matrimonial life; they constitute its very foundation,” the bench observed.The HC clarified that irretrievable breakdown of marriage by itself was not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.“The foundation of the decree remains the cruelty established from the evidence,” the bench said, adding that forcing the wife to resume the relationship would be unrealistic.The husband argued that his subsequent petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights demonstrated his willingness to continue the marriage. The bench, however, said this could not erase the conduct that preceded the separation or negate its impact on the wife.“The question remains whether, on the evidence as a whole, the Wife had been subjected to cruelty,” the Judges said, holding that the cumulative circumstances provided an affirmative answer.
