News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 179 | 2026:CGHC:10934-DB
March 03, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has allowed a husband’s appeal and granted him a decree of divorce after holding that a prolonged criminal trial under Section 498A IPC, which ended in acquittal, amounted to mental cruelty.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma set aside the Family Court’s January 18, 2023 order that had rejected the husband’s plea for dissolution of marriage. The appeal arose from a judgment of the Family Court at Balodabazar in HMA No.105A/2022.
The couple was married on February 15, 2015, according to Hindu rites. The husband contended that the wife stayed with him only for about 10 to 11 days after marriage and later began insisting that he separate from his aged parents. He alleged that when he refused, she threatened to implicate him in false cases.
In 2018, the wife lodged an FIR under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005, alleging cruelty and dowry harassment. The husband, along with his two brothers and parents, faced trial before the Judicial Magistrate First Class.
The Family Court, however, found that the grounds of cruelty and desertion were not proved and dismissed the divorce petition.
During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the criminal case concluded. By judgment dated June 16, 2025, the trial court acquitted the husband and his family members of all charges, holding that the prosecution failed to prove cruelty, dowry demand or tonhi harassment.
The husband moved an application to bring the acquittal judgment on record as additional evidence. The High Court examined whether it could admit such material in an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, even though Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is not expressly made applicable.
Relying on established principles that an appellate court has incidental and ancillary powers necessary to render justice effective, the Bench allowed the additional document to be taken on record.
On the issue of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court referred to precedents including Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa. The Supreme Court in these cases held that where a spouse is subjected to a criminal trial under Section 498A IPC and is ultimately acquitted, it can constitute mental cruelty.
The High Court noted that the husband and his family underwent a seven-year criminal trial, faced the stigma of serious allegations and the apprehension of arrest, only to be acquitted. Such accusations, the Court observed, carry deep social consequences and cause lasting mental trauma.
The Bench held that compelling a spouse to endure a prolonged and ultimately baseless criminal prosecution amounts to mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia).
The Court further examined the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It found that the parties had been living separately since 2018 and that the wife had refused to resume cohabitation even during counselling.
Since the criminal allegations were not proved and no reasonable cause for separation survived after acquittal, the Court held that the essential elements of desertion were satisfied. The prolonged separation of more than seven years, without reconciliation, demonstrated an intention to permanently end cohabitation.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s judgment and dissolved the marriage solemnised on February 15, 2015.
The wife had not sought permanent alimony during the proceedings. The Court clarified that she is at liberty to file a separate application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for permanent alimony.
With this ruling, the Court reaffirmed that false or unsubstantiated criminal proceedings between spouses can have serious matrimonial consequences and may justify dissolution of marriage on the ground of mental cruelty.
Case Reference : FA(MAT) No. 59 of 2023, Dinesh Sahu v. Smt. Padma Sahu; For the Appellant: Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate; For the Respondent: Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate; Amicus Curiae: Mr. Rahul Tamaskar and Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocates.
