Acquittal Under Section 498A IPC Alone Does Not Prove Wife’s Cruelty: Chhattisgarh HC [Read Judgment]

Bilaspur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a husband’s appeal against a Family Court decree refusing him divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, holding that he failed to prove cruelty, desertion or adultery. 

The Court observed that mere acquittal of a husband in a criminal case under Section 498A of the IPC does not, by itself, establish that the wife’s allegations were false so as to amount to cruelty.

A Division Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sushma Sawant was hearing a first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No. 114-A/2012. The Bench also decided three applications under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, one by the wife and two by the husband, seeking to place additional documents on record.

The parties married on 23.03.2010 according to Hindu rites. The husband alleged that the relationship was not cordial from the beginning, that on the first night the wife disclosed a prior relationship with a police constable and expressed unwillingness to continue, and that she quarrelled with him and his family and threatened to implicate them in a false case. He said she left the matrimonial home on 22.11.2010 and thereafter lodged dowry harassment complaints, leading to a case under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC. He also alleged that she married one Devashish Nayak on 22.06.2013 and lived with him as his wife. Devashish Nayak was impleaded as the second defendant and remained absent and ex parte. The husband sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty, desertion and adultery.

The wife admitted the marriage but denied any prior relationship, saying she married of her own free will. She said the husband and his family harassed her for insufficient dowry and forcibly sent her to her parental home on 19.09.2010, that she had always been willing to resume married life, and that she had tried for reconciliation through the community and filed proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act before the Family Court, Durg. She also denied the allegations of cruelty, desertion and adultery and disputed the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajnandgaon court. The Family Court answered all the issues on cruelty, desertion and entitlement to divorce against the husband and dismissed the suit.

Before the High Court, the husband’s counsel argued that the Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on cruelty, desertion and adultery, and that the wife’s second marriage showed adultery. He relied on his acquittal in the Section 498A case, by judgment dated 16.11.2018, to contend that the false allegations amounted to mental cruelty, citing Rani Narsimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani, (2020) 18 SCC 247, and a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment dated 11.01.2024 in Prashant Kumar Jha v. Smt. Sadhna Jha. He also submitted that the affidavit filed with a compromise petition could not be acted upon because he was in custody when it was executed, and no material showed that the Magistrate’s permission was obtained.

The wife’s counsel argued that the husband never intended to keep her and had set up a false Section 9 proceeding through his friend. According to her, he persuaded her to compromise another criminal proceeding on an assurance that he would resume cohabitation, and she therefore did not support the prosecution, which led to his acquittal, after which he went back on his word. Relying on Gopal Verma v. Poona Bai, 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1092, she argued that acquittal in a Section 498A case does not by itself establish cruelty by the wife.

On the Order XLI Rule 27 applications, the Court found that the case did not fall under clauses (a) or (aa), as the documents had not been refused by the Family Court and no due diligence plea was made. It nevertheless allowed all three applications under clause (b), noting that the documents were certified copies of court records whose authenticity was not disputed, were relevant to the proper adjudication of the appeal and could be taken on record, leaving their evidentiary value to be decided on merits.

Turning to the merits, the Bench noted that the husband’s two witnesses, a friend and a neighbour, admitted in cross-examination that they had no personal knowledge of what happened between the parties and spoke only of what they had heard, so no substantial assistance could be derived from them. On desertion, it found nothing to show that the wife lived apart without justifiable cause. The husband himself admitted in cross-examination that she had convened a social meeting to resolve the dispute, where he refused to take her back, and the record showed that she had instituted restitution proceedings at Durg, in which an order was passed against him. The Court held that the fault lay with the husband and desertion was not established.

On adultery, the Court noted that the husband introduced this ground only during the pendency of the suit and impleaded a third person, and gave no explanation of how he came to know of the alleged proceedings. That application under Section 9, filed within 22-23 days of the alleged marriage, was withdrawn on the very first date of hearing, so no inference of a second marriage could be drawn. The husband also did not confront the wife with these documents in cross-examination. The Court found the wife’s version more plausible, held that the proceeding appeared to have been set up to create evidence against her, and found no cogent evidence of any pre-marital relationship.

On cruelty, the Court held:

“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 Bench said that the concept of cruelty is person-specific and varies with the circumstances of each case, and that the evidence in the matrimonial proceedings must be examined as a whole. It added that, as clarified in Gopal Verma, the principles governing appreciation of evidence in matrimonial proceedings differ from those in criminal proceedings.

The Court accepted that the husband’s affidavit showed he was in custody when it was executed, but found no material that the Magistrate’s permission was not obtained, no plea that the affidavit was fabricated, and no specific denial of its execution. It noted that the documents showed that, in a criminal case under Section 307 of the IPC lodged on the wife’s report, she did not support the prosecution because of the compromise, resulting in the husband’s acquittal, after which he did not honour the compromise and refused to keep her with him. The Bench held that this conduct supported the wife’s case and indicated that he was unwilling to keep her and was subjecting her to cruelty.

Holding that there was no cogent evidence that the wife had withdrawn from the husband’s company without justifiable cause, lived in adultery or subjected him to cruelty, the Court found no error in the Family Court’s decree. The appeal was dismissed and a decree directed to be drawn up.

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Mr. T.K. Jha, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 1: Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 2: None present, though served.

Case Title: Lokesh Sinha vs. Smt. Kusumlata Sinha & Anr., FAM No. 133 of 2015, decided on 29.09.2026

[Read Judgment]