In an unexpected twist, a simple “OK” from a station master triggered a series of complications, leading to a Rs 3-crore loss for the railways, the station master’s suspension, and a 12-year divorce battle spanning from Visakhapatnam to the Supreme Court and Chhattisgarh’s Durg.
The station master, hailing from Visakhapatnam, was in the middle of a heated call with his wife, originally from Durg, during his shift. Frustrated, he ended the conversation by saying, “OK,” intending to continue the discussion at home. Unfortunately, he hadn’t realized that his work microphone was on. His colleague, only hearing the “OK,” mistook it as a green light to dispatch a freight train. Consequently, the train traveled into a restricted, Maoist-affected zone, violating night-time restrictions. While no accident occurred, the detour cost the railways Rs 3 crore. The incident led to the station master’s suspension, worsening his already strained marriage.
The couple’s troubles started soon after their wedding on October 12, 2011. The wife revealed she was still emotionally connected to a former partner, which caused ongoing friction. Despite her parents’ assurances, she continued to communicate with her former partner, even calling him while her husband was present. The relationship was already strained, but the phone call leading to the “OK” incident intensified matters.
Following his suspension, the station master filed for divorce in Visakhapatnam. In response, his wife accused him and several family members—including his elderly father, elder brother, and sister-in-law—of cruelty under IPC Section 498A. Fearing for her safety, she managed to have the case transferred to Durg through the Supreme Court.
When a Durg family court rejected his divorce petition, the station master appealed to the Chhattisgarh High Court. His lawyer, Vipin Kumar Tiwari, argued his case, which eventually reached a higher judiciary level.
In a recent ruling, a division bench of Justices Rajani Dubey and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal sided with the station master. They deemed the wife’s actions as “cruelty,” overturning the family court’s decision and granting the man divorce. The court observed that she had falsely accused her husband of an affair with his sister-in-law, made unsubstantiated dowry and cruelty claims, and filed baseless complaints against his family.
The High Court concluded that her continuous phone quarrels, the false accusations, and legal actions constituted mental cruelty, leading to a long-overdue end to the strained marriage.
