Latest news with #BPRoutray
New Indian Express
19 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Wife criticising husband's physical infirmity is equal to mental cruelty, says Orissa HC
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has upheld a Family Court judgment granting divorce in a case in which the wife had repeatedly made disparaging comments to her husband regarding his physical infirmity, which in the lower court's view, constituted mental cruelty. In the case, the marriage was solemnised on June 1, 2016, but the wife is staying separately in her parents' house since March 25, 2018 after her constant remarks on her husband's infirmity resulted in serious disputes between them. Subsequently, on the husband's petition, the Family Court, Puri, granted decree of divorce dissolving their marriage on grounds of mental cruelty by wife without any alimony. The wife filed an appeal in the high court against the judgement of the Family Court on July 10, 2023. In her appeal, the wife claimed that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and was residing with her parents since 2018. She further argued that the charge of cruelty was unsubstantiated and the Family Court erred in granting the divorce without awarding permanent alimony. However, the division bench of Justices BP Routray and Chittaranjan Dash dismissed the appeal recently observing that the aspersions made by the wife on the husband amounts to mental cruelty. 'On such ground, we are satisfied that the requirement in terms of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act is attracted to grant the decree of divorce. We thus confirm the impugned judgment granting the decree of divorce between the parties dissolving their marriage,' the bench ruled. The bench also noted, 'A person is expected to give respect to another person in general and where it comes to relationship of husband and wife, it is expected that the wife should support the husband despite his physical infirmity, if any.'
News18
2 days ago
- News18
Mocking Husband's Disability Is Mental Cruelty: Orissa High Court Upholds Divorce Without Alimony
Last Updated: The court confirmed that such conduct destroyed the sanctity of the marital relationship, making cohabitation untenable The Orissa High Court has upheld a divorce granted to a physically disabled man after it was proven that his wife had mocked his disability, terming such conduct as mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The bench of Justices BP Routray and Chittaranjan Dash, while dismissing the wife's appeal, observed that her repeated insults toward the husband's physical infirmity, including calling him names like 'Kempa" (cripple) and 'Nikhatu" (useless), clearly amounted to mental cruelty, warranting dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on June 1, 2016. According to the husband's testimony, the wife left the matrimonial home merely three months later on September 15, 2016, returned briefly in January 2017, but ultimately left for good on March 25, 2018. She later filed a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC and other provisions, accusing the husband and his family of cruelty. The husband filed a divorce petition on April 3, 2019, on the ground of mental cruelty. He examined two witnesses to support his claims. Despite cross-examining them, the wife neither examined any witnesses nor produced any evidence to counter the allegations. The family court in Puri, in its judgment dated July 10, 2023, ruled in favour of the husband, granting a decree of divorce without awarding permanent alimony. The wife challenged this order before the high court. Dismissing the appeal, the high court said that the evidence on record clearly showed the wife's demeaning behaviour toward her husband's disability. 'Such behaviour by the wife…definitely in our opinion amounts to mental cruelty," the court observed. It emphasised that in a marital relationship, mutual respect is essential, and ridiculing a spouse's physical shortcomings can gravely impact their dignity and emotional well-being. The court cited key precedents, including V Bhagat v. D Bhagat and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, to explain the evolving contours of 'mental cruelty" in matrimonial law. It reiterated that conduct which causes deep mental pain, making it unreasonable to expect the spouses to live together, can be sufficient ground for divorce. 'A person is expected to give respect to another person in general and where it comes to relationship of husband and wife, it is expected that the wife should support the husband despite his physical infirmity, if any," court said. On the issue of permanent alimony and return of Streedhan, the court noted that no material was presented on the income or assets of either party, and thus left the matter open for the wife to pursue separately under Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the family court. First Published: June 12, 2025, 15:16 IST
Hindustan Times
28-04-2025
- Hindustan Times
Orissa HC overturns death penalty in POCSO case, orders fresh trial within 6 months
Citing a 'perfunctory and mechanical' trial marred by procedural lapses, the Orissa high court has overturned the death sentence of a man convicted in 2023 for the rape and murder of a five-year-old girl in Odisha's Sundargarh district. The court, emphasising that the right to a fair trial is not merely the accused's privilege but a societal imperative, has ordered a fresh trial within six months, directing the trial court to uphold fairness and due process. A division bench of Justices BP Routray and Chittaranjan Dash, while setting aside the conviction, pulled up the trial court for failing to ensure effective legal representation for the convict Sanjeeb Kerketta and for neglecting critical procedural safeguards. 'The grievous nature of the offence cannot alone justify the death penalty without a genuine inquiry into the offender's circumstances,' the court observed, noting that the trial court's rushed sentencing process, devoid of evaluating mitigating factors, violated Article 21's guarantee of the right to life. Also Read:Kerala man sentenced to 47 years in prison for sexually abusing boy 'Such an approach undermines the constitutional commitment to fair trial standards,' the bench added. The case dates to October 21, 2016, when the young girl was abducted from her home in Sundargarh while sleeping beside her widowed mother. The mother raised an alarm, but the perpetrator fled. Four days later, on October 25, the girl's body was found in an under-construction house. A post-mortem confirmed rape and murder, with neuro-hemorrhagic shock due to genital injuries as the cause of death. Police recovered a bloodstained T-shirt and a wallet linked to Kerketta, leading to his arrest. In October 2023, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) court in Sundargarh convicted him under Sections 450, 366, 376(2) (i), 376(A), 302, and 201 of the IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to death. Kerketta appealed to the high court, alleging grave procedural irregularities that denied him a fair trial. He argued he was deprived of competent legal representation, unable to engage a counsel himself. Multiple state-appointed counsels either withdrew or provided only formal representation, failing to cross-examine key prosecution witnesses, including the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. Kerketta's lawyer highlighted that his statement under Section 313 CrPC, meant to allow him to explain incriminating evidence, was defective, with critical elements like DNA evidence—which showed no match with the victim's vaginal swab or clothes—not properly presented. He contended that the circumstantial evidence, including the 'last seen' theory and recovered items, was inconclusive and did not form an unbroken chain of guilt. The high court's scrutiny revealed a litany of lapses. For nearly ten months after Kerketta's arrest, no state defence counsel (SDC) was appointed, and no Vakalatnama (legal document) was filed. When an SDC was finally appointed in August 2017, she withdrew on the same day charges were framed. Over the trial's duration, three more SDCs were appointed, but each withdrew within months, and another counsel exited within two years. The final SDC, appointed in August 2021, failed to appear consistently, leaving key witnesses unchallenged. 'Witnesses were either not cross-examined or done so in a perfunctory manner, failing to elicit contradictions that could have aided the defence,' the court noted. No defence evidence was presented, and final arguments lacked diligence. The court further criticized the trial court for not ensuring that appointed counsels received complete case records, rendering their representation ineffective. The examination under Section 313 CrPC was equally flawed, with 'excessively lengthy' questions covering multiple circumstances in a single breath, depriving Kerketta of a meaningful opportunity to respond. 'The trial court made no effort to understand the accused's predicament,' the bench remarked, calling the process 'disgusting' for its failure to filter specific evidence for explanation. The absence of a proper sentencing hearing was also observed. The trial court did not explore mitigating factors, such as Kerketta's background or potential for reformation, mandatory in death penalty cases. 'The failure to conduct a balancing exercise between aggravating and mitigating circumstances vitiated the sentencing process,' the court held, stressing that this touched upon the right to life itself. The bench underscored that cross-examination remained a vital safeguard, and the inaction of court-appointed counsels constituted a violation of Kerketta's rights. 'The cumulative effect of these deficiencies prejudiced the accused's case, resulting in manifest injustice,' the court said. It declared the trial 'constitutionally impermissible,' as it undermined public faith in the justice system. The high court remanded the case to the Sundargarh POCSO court for a de novo trial from the charge-framing stage, with strict directives: appoint competent defence counsel, provide adequate preparation time, furnish complete case records, frame Section 313 CrPC questions distinctly, and conduct a substantive sentencing hearing if needed. The trial must conclude within six months, with the court urged to consider a special prosecutor to ensure robust representation, the HC bench said.
New Indian Express
26-04-2025
- New Indian Express
Orissa HC cautions courts against adopting casual approach to trial, sets aside death sentence
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has called upon all trial courts to uphold the constitutional guarantee of fairness, diligence, and due process at every stage of the proceedings. 'Courts should remain alive to the fact that the duty to conduct trials in accordance with the law becomes all the more heightened when dealing with allegations involving heinous offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. Cavalier or casual approach to such trials not only imperils the rights of the accused but also erodes the legitimacy of the criminal justice system itself,' the division bench of Justices Chittaranjan Dash and BP Routray has remarked. The observations were made as the bench quashed the conviction and death sentence awarded to the accused by a Special POCSO court in a case of rape and murder of a five-year-old girl. The incident was reported in Sundargarh district in 2016. The Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer Special POCSO Court (Sundargarh) Mahendra Kumar Sutradhar convicted accused Sanjeeb Kerketta and imposed the death sentence on October 19, 2023. The death sentence order was then sent by the state government to the high court for confirmation. The division bench of Justices Chittaranjan Dash and BP Routray quashed the conviction and death sentence on Wednesday. 'In view of cumulative effect of the serious procedural irregularities, this court is of the considered opinion that a fresh trial is the only course available in the present case. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed against the convict are set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for a de novo (fresh) trial from the stage of framing of charges,' the bench ordered. The high court upon a cumulative evaluation of the records found that the trial proceedings were afflicted by multiple and grave irregularities, including improper and inadequate examination under section 313 of the CrPC, failure to consider mitigating circumstances (such as the accused's background, mental health, and post-conviction conduct) at sentencing, and denial of a distinct and fair sentencing hearing. Conviction and sentencing were conducted on the same day. Each of these deficiencies, standing alone, would be sufficient to occasion serious prejudice, the bench observed. 'The procedural safeguards are not ornamental; they are constitutional imperatives designed to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done,' the bench observed and directed the trial court to ensure that the accused is afforded effective legal assistance, all prosecution witnesses are examined afresh, and that the accused is properly examined under section 313 of the CrPC, with each material circumstance put to him clearly, distinctly, and separately.
