Bilaspur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a husband’s appeal seeking divorce, holding that acquittal in a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not, by itself, establish that the wife’s allegations were false or that she had subjected him to mental cruelty. The Court ruled that allegations of cruelty, desertion and adultery must be independently established through evidence in matrimonial proceedings.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sushma Sawant delivered the judgment on September 29, 2026, in Lokesh Sinha v. Smt. Kusumlata Sinha & Anr., FAM No. 133 of 2015. The Bench upheld the Family Court, Rajnandgaon’s judgment dated July 2, 2015, which had dismissed the husband’s divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Husband Alleged Cruelty, Desertion and Adultery
The parties married on March 23, 2010, according to Hindu rites and customs. The husband alleged that their relationship deteriorated soon after marriage. He claimed that his wife had disclosed a previous relationship with a police constable, repeatedly quarrelled with him and his family, and threatened to implicate them in false criminal cases.
He further alleged that his wife left the matrimonial home on November 22, 2010, and subsequently initiated criminal proceedings concerning dowry harassment under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC. He maintained that the criminal allegations caused him mental and physical harassment.
The husband also alleged that his wife had married Devashish Nayak on June 22, 2013, and was living with him as his wife. On these grounds, he sought dissolution of the marriage for cruelty, desertion and adultery.
The wife denied the allegations, stating that her husband and his family had harassed her over dowry demands and forcibly sent her to her parental home on September 19, 2010. She maintained that she had never deserted her husband and had made efforts to restore their relationship, including initiating proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Durg.
The Family Court found that the husband had failed to prove any of the grounds for divorce and dismissed his petition.
High Court Allows Applications to Introduce Additional Evidence
During the appeal, both parties sought permission under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to introduce additional documents. The husband filed two applications, while the wife filed one.
The documents included the husband’s acquittal judgment dated November 16, 2018, in the Section 498A IPC case, records relating to other criminal proceedings, a compromise agreement dated August 31, 2021, and documents concerning the alleged second marriage.
The Bench observed that the conditions under clauses (a) and (aa) of Order XLI Rule 27 were not satisfied because the documents had not been refused by the Family Court and the parties had not established that they could not have produced them despite due diligence.
However, the Court allowed all three applications under clause (b), finding that the certified court records were relevant to the proper adjudication of the appeal and that their authenticity had not been disputed. The Court clarified that their evidentiary value would be examined while deciding the appeal on its merits.
Witnesses Had No Personal Knowledge of Alleged Cruelty
While examining the evidence, the Bench noted that the husband’s witnesses, Dhanraj Singh Thakur and Anita Sonwani, had no personal knowledge of what had actually transpired between the spouses inside their matrimonial home. Their statements were largely based on information received from the husband or other persons.
Consequently, the Court found that their testimony provided no substantial assistance in proving the allegations.
The Bench reiterated that the burden of establishing the grounds for dissolution of marriage rested on the husband. His allegations could not be accepted merely because they had been repeated by witnesses who lacked direct knowledge of the relevant events.
Wife Had Not Deserted Her Husband
Rejecting the ground of desertion, the Court observed that the husband’s own cross-examination contained an important admission. He acknowledged that the wife had convened a social meeting to resolve the matrimonial dispute, but he had refused to take her back and resume cohabitation.
The Bench also relied on the proceedings instituted by the wife before the Family Court, Durg, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The relevant judgment, marked as Exhibit D-6 before the Family Court, showed that an order had been passed against the husband.
These circumstances indicated that the wife had attempted to restore the matrimonial relationship and that the husband’s conduct had contributed to the parties’ separation.
The Court therefore held that there was no cogent evidence establishing that the wife had withdrawn from her husband’s company without justifiable cause. The ground of desertion was not made out.
Alleged Second Marriage Did Not Establish Adultery
The High Court also rejected the husband’s allegation that his wife had married another man during the subsistence of their marriage.
The Bench noted that the husband introduced the adultery allegation during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings and impleaded Devashish Nayak as a respondent. However, he failed to explain how he had learned of the alleged proceedings concerning the wife’s purported second marriage.
The Court examined an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act allegedly filed by Devashish Nayak, claiming that he had married the wife on June 22, 2013. The application was reportedly filed within 22 to 23 days of the alleged marriage and was withdrawn on the very first date of hearing.
The Bench held that no inference of a second marriage could be drawn from those proceedings. It also noted that the husband had not confronted the wife with the relevant documents during cross-examination or given her an opportunity to explain them.
In the absence of reliable supporting evidence, the Court found that the proceedings appeared to have been set up to create evidence against the wife. The allegation of adultery, as well as the claim concerning a premarital relationship, therefore remained unproved.
Section 498A Acquittal Does Not Automatically Establish Mental Cruelty
The principal legal issue concerned the husband’s contention that his acquittal in the Section 498A IPC case established that the wife had made false allegations and subjected him to mental cruelty.
The Bench rejected the argument, observing:
“Mere acquittal in a criminal proceeding under Section 498A of the IPC does not, by itself, establish that the allegations constituting cruelty were false.”
The Court explained that cruelty is a person-specific concept and must be assessed in light of the circumstances of each case. To determine whether cruelty has been established, the evidence available in the matrimonial proceedings must be examined as a whole.
The Bench referred to the Chhattisgarh High Court’s earlier decision in Gopal Verma v. Poona Bai, 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1092, which distinguished the principles governing the appreciation of evidence in matrimonial proceedings from those applicable in criminal cases.
The judgment makes clear that the outcome of a criminal prosecution cannot automatically determine whether a spouse has established a ground for divorce. The evidence and circumstances relevant to the matrimonial dispute must be independently evaluated.
Court Examines Compromise and Separate Section 307 IPC Case
The Bench also considered documents relating to a separate criminal case under Section 307 IPC, registered on the basis of a report lodged by the wife.
According to the records examined by the Court, the parties had entered into a compromise. The wife did not support the prosecution case against her husband in that proceeding, resulting in his acquittal. The husband relied on an affidavit associated with the compromise to argue that he had been in custody when it was executed and that the necessary permission of the Magistrate had not been obtained.
The Court acknowledged that the affidavit indicated that the husband was in custody at the relevant time. However, there was no material establishing that the Magistrate’s permission had not been obtained. The husband had also not specifically denied executing the affidavit or alleged that it was fabricated.
The Bench further observed that, after obtaining the benefit of the compromise, the husband had failed to honour its terms and refused to keep his wife with him.
The Court held that this conduct supported the wife’s version that the husband was unwilling to resume matrimonial life and was subjecting her to cruelty. It did not establish that the wife had committed cruelty against him.
Importantly, the Court considered the Section 498A acquittal and the separate Section 307 IPC proceedings as distinct matters while evaluating the overall evidence.
Appeal Dismissed
Concluding its examination, the High Court held that there was no cogent evidence establishing that the wife had deserted her husband without justifiable cause, lived in adultery or subjected him to cruelty.
The Bench found no error in the Family Court’s appreciation of the evidence or its decision to dismiss the divorce petition. Accordingly, the first appeal was dismissed, and the Court directed that a decree be drawn up.
The judgment underscores that acquittal in a criminal case arising from matrimonial allegations does not automatically prove that the allegations were false or establish mental cruelty. A spouse seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, must prove the statutory grounds relied upon through the evidence and circumstances of the matrimonial case.
Case: Lokesh Sinha v. Smt. Kusumlata Sinha & Anr.
Case Number: FAM No. 133 of 201
Appearances: Mr. T.K. Jha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, appeared for the appellant. Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar appeared for Respondent No. 1. No one appeared for Respondent No. 2 despite service.
