Bilaspur : In a significant ruling that reinforces the legal recognition of mental cruelty in matrimonial disputes, the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur has dissolved the marriage of a 32-year-old working woman, holding that sustained harassment and abusive messages sent by her husband to her and her family members amounted to grave mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sushma Sawant allowed the appeal filed by Archana Singh, setting aside the judgment and decree dated April 2, 2024, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, in Civil Suit No. 169A/2022, which had rejected her petition for divorce. The marriage, solemnized on December 5, 2021, stands dissolved by decree of divorce.
Background of the Case
According to the appellant’s pleadings, her marriage to Anand Kumar Gupta was performed according to Hindu rites and customs at her maternal uncle’s residence in Village Sawan Chhapra, District Ballia, Uttar Pradesh. After the wedding, the couple lived together for about a month, during which, she alleged, her husband repeatedly abused and assaulted her. When she informed her elder brother and mother, they attempted to intervene, but the respondent allegedly abused them and refused to speak with them.
The appellant returned to Ambikapur with her mother and brother. In April 2022, she briefly returned to her matrimonial home, where the respondent initially behaved properly but soon resumed hurling filthy abuses and threatening to kill her. She returned to Ambikapur again. On a subsequent occasion, when her two younger sisters protested against the respondent’s physical assault on her, he allegedly sent text messages containing filthy abuses to the mobile phones of the appellant and her sisters, frightening them.
The appellant further alleged that the respondent demanded an air-conditioner as dowry and threatened to sell her jewellery if the demand was not met. Unable to endure the harassment, she left the matrimonial home and has since resided separately at her parental home in Ambikapur.
Family Court Proceedings
Despite due service of summons, the respondent remained absent before the Family Court on June 16, 2023, and was proceeded ex parte. No written statement was filed on his behalf. The Family Court framed issues on whether the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty and whether she was entitled to a decree of divorce. After appreciating the evidence, the Family Court answered both issues in the negative and dismissed her suit on April 2, 2024.
Appeal and Additional Evidence
Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. She also moved an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to bring on record a copy of an FIR dated August 25, 2026, registered under Crime No. 101/2026 at Mahila Thana, Ambikapur. The FIR alleged that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent continued to visit and harass her, including at her office, and insisted that she sign papers for divorce.
The High Court, however, rejected the application, noting that the appellant had not produced the document before the Family Court nor established that it was not within her knowledge despite due diligence. The Court further observed that the FIR merely showed that a complaint was filed, with no material indicating its outcome or whether any trial had commenced. “In absence of such information, the allegations contained in the First Information Report cannot be said to have been either proved or disproved,” the Court stated, adding that the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 were not fully complied with.
High Court’s Analysis of Cruelty
The High Court then examined the evidence adduced before the Family Court, where the appellant examined herself as PW-1 and her mother Rukmani Devi as PW-2. The respondent, having been proceeded ex parte, adduced no oral or documentary evidence. The Family Court had discarded the WhatsApp chat screenshots (Exhibits P-2 and P-3) on the ground that the identity of the mobile phone holder was not established and the chats were incomplete.
The High Court took a different view. It noted that the respondent had not specifically denied or controverted the contents of the WhatsApp chats and had chosen not to appear or challenge them. “Since the documents marked as Exs.P-2 & P-3 produced by the appellant, have remained unchallenged, there is no reason to disbelieve them,” the Court observed. It further held that under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, a Family Court is not fettered by the strict rules of relevancy and admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and may receive any document or information that assists it in dealing effectually with a dispute.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, which enumerated illustrative instances of mental cruelty, including sustained abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture or render miserable the life of a spouse. It also relied on Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, which held that cruelty has an inseparable nexus with human conduct and depends on the social milieu, ways of life, relationship, temperaments, and emotions of the parties.
Applying these principles, the High Court found that the appellant was a working woman, and subjecting her to such harassment would certainly fall within the ambit of cruelty. “The WhatsApp chats Exs.P.2 & Ex.P.3 produced on record concerning the family members, viewed in their proper perspective, clearly disclose conduct falling within the ambit of mental cruelty,” the Court observed. It further noted that the messages reflected the respondent’s mindset, indicating that he did not hold a respectful or appropriate view even towards his sisters-in-law. “Such conduct, particularly when directed towards the family members of the wife, would undoubtedly cause deep mental anguish and constitute grave mental cruelty to any wife,” the Bench held.
Legal Provisions Involved
The case was decided under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty. The word “cruelty” is not defined in the Act, but courts have consistently interpreted it to include both physical and mental cruelty. The appellant invoked Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which provides for appeals from judgments and decrees of Family Courts. The application for additional evidence was moved under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, while the admissibility of the WhatsApp chats was considered in light of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Implications of the Judgment
The ruling is significant for several reasons. It reaffirms that mental cruelty can be established through unchallenged documentary evidence, including electronic messages, even if the strict requirements of the Indian Evidence Act are not met, given the relaxed evidentiary framework applicable to Family Courts. It also underscores that a respondent’s deliberate absence from proceedings and failure to controvert allegations can lead to an adverse inference and strengthen the petitioner’s case.
The judgment further recognizes that harassment directed at a wife’s family members, particularly her sisters, can contribute to mental cruelty, as it causes deep anguish and affects the wife’s mental health. By setting aside the Family Court’s finding that cruelty was not proved, the High Court has reinforced the principle that the cumulative effect of conduct, rather than isolated incidents, must be assessed in matrimonial disputes.
The Court also reserved liberty for the appellant to claim permanent alimony by making a separate application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as she had not claimed it in her pleadings or written statement.
Conclusion
The Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision to grant divorce on the ground of mental cruelty, despite the Family Court’s rejection, highlights the judiciary’s evolving understanding of cruelty in the context of modern matrimonial relationships. The ruling sends a clear message that abusive behaviour, including through electronic communication, and harassment of a spouse’s family members, will not be tolerated and can constitute sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage. The case also demonstrates the importance of effectively utilizing the Family Courts Act’s relaxed evidentiary provisions to ensure that justice is not denied due to technical procedural constraints.
