The Orissa High Court recently refused to reverse a divorce granted by a family court, observing that the sanctity of a marriage can’t be saved by preserving only “the legal form of the relationship” when its foundation has been “substantially eroded”.Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash were hearing an appeal filed by a husband against a family court order by which a divorce was granted to his wife on the ground of cruelty.“Marriage undoubtedly carries a sanctity which the court must ordinarily endeavour to preserve. But 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 October 1 order read.The high court added, “Where those attributes have been progressively lost and the relationship has become a source of sustained mental pain and anguish, the court cannot shut its eyes to the reality of the relationship merely because its deterioration cannot be fitted into one isolated or neatly defined category of conduct.” Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash noted that the essential element of mutual confidence had substantially eroded in the relationship.According to the husband, the couple got married on October 20, 2021, following which they initially resided at Visakhapatnam before shifting to Hyderabad, where they worked in the Information Technology sector.The husband alleged that the couple later developed differences and the wife left the matrimonial home in June 2023 and went to Rayagada along with her parents, after which she filed a case for divorce on the basis of cruelty before the family court. On January 27, 2024, the family court dissolved the marriage. The husband then moved the high court with the current appeal.‘Wrongly dissolved marriage’Advocate S K Dwivedy, appearing for the husband, argued that the family court had wrongly dissolved the marriage on the basis of cruelty, as the allegations of the wife were neither proved by evidence and nor were they enough to be called cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. He further stated that the husband had also instituted a case for resuming the marriage, which reflected his intention to continue the relationship.Story continues below this adAlso read | ‘16 years apart’: Telangana High Court grants man divorce over false criminal case, crueltyAdvocate T K Mishra, representing the wife, submitted that she had specifically named acts of physical and mental cruelty meted out to her during the marriage, along with evidence. He added that the husband’s conduct had caused mental agony to the wife and “rendered continuation of the matrimonial relationship impossible”.‘Continuing discord’The high court stated that “ordinary wear and tear of married life, trivial irritations, occasional quarrels or differences arising in the course of matrimonial life cannot, by themselves, furnish a ground for dissolution of marriage. The conduct complained of must be of such a nature and degree as to cause a reasonable apprehension that it would not be possible for the parties to continue living together.”According to the bench, “Mental cruelty, by its very nature, may not always be capable of direct proof, and the effect of the conduct upon the mind of the spouse has to be assessed having regard to the circumstances, the status and background of the parties and the nature of the relationship.”The high court observed that the evidence given by the wife could not be “reduced to a case of a stray quarrel or an isolated matrimonial disagreement”. As per the court, the allegations of physical assault and the specific incidents stated by the wife when seen as a whole, present “a continuing course of discord.”Story continues below this adThe court noted that the final separation of the couple was not “an event occurring in isolation but the culmination of an already deteriorated matrimonial relationship” and that according to the evidence there was “not merely a difference in perception between two spouses, but a relationship in which the essential element of mutual confidence had substantially eroded.”It further noticed that “even when the parties were brought face to face before this court on March 20, the relationship could not be restored; rather, both expressed their desire to bring the marital tie to an end.”Also read | ‘Can get parole for own wedding’: Karnataka High Court allows murder convict 15 daysWhile granting divorce to the couple, the high court said that it did not grant a decree of divorce just because they were separated or wanted to end the marriage, but “the foundation of the decree remains the cruelty established from the evidence.”Accordingly, it refused to interfere with the family court’s order and held that “the matrimonial relationship has lost its essential character and that compelling the Respondent-Wife to resume such a relationship would be unrealistic.”