“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 rejected a woman’s appeal challenging the grant of divorce to her husband, citing her filing of 45 criminal cases FIRs against him and his family.
A Division Bench comprising Justice BP Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash noted that the sheer number of cases indicated a pattern of vexatious litigation rather than a legitimate quest for 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 encountered difficulties. The husband claimed that his wife pressured him to cut ties with his parents, sought financial control by demanding to be the sole nominee in his insurance policies, and frequently engaged in disputes.
In 2009, the husband filed for divorce. In 2023, a family court granted the divorce, requiring him to pay ₹63 lakh as permanent alimony. The wife subsequently challenged the decision in the High Court.
The Court dismissed her claim that filing multiple cases does not amount to mental cruelty.
The Bench clarified that while merely filing cases may not always constitute cruelty, misusing the legal process to inflict persistent harassment and mental distress qualifies as mental cruelty.
The Court also identified multiple instances of physical violence and abusive behavior by the wife toward her husband and his family.
It observed that when one spouse repeatedly threatens self-harm or resorts to violence, it undermines the very foundation of marriage, creating an atmosphere of fear and emotional distress.
While an attempted suicide may stem from desperation, the Court noted that repeated threats of self-harm are often a deliberate tactic of manipulation used to 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 noted that the evidence on record depicts a poignant story of a marriage that began with hope but gradually spiraled into a cycle of emotional distress, intimidation, and endless legal battles.
“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 emphasized that the law cannot force an individual to remain in a marriage that has become a source of pain and distress.
It asserted that the man has the right to seek peace and emotional relief, which can only come from dissolving the broken relationship, while dismissing the wife’s appeal.