Acquittal under Section 498A IPC alone does not prove that a spouse’s cruelty allegations were false.

The husband appealed the Family Court’s dismissal of his petition for divorce, alleging cruelty, desertion and adultery by his wife.

The parties married in 2010 and began living separately that year.

The husband alleged that the wife had left without justification, had made false criminal allegations against him, and had entered into another marriage; the wife denied those allegations and maintained that she had been forced to leave and remained willing to resume cohabitation.

During the appeal, both parties sought to introduce documents under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, including criminal-court records and material relating to alleged compromise proceedings.

The High Court allowed the applications and considered the additional documents on appeal.

1. Whether the documents tendered under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC could be received as additional evidence.

2. Whether the husband established cruelty, desertion or adultery as grounds for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides the relevant grounds for divorce, including cruelty, desertion and adultery.

Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, additional evidence may be admitted in the circumstances specified by the rule, including where the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or for another substantial cause.

Matrimonial proceedings are assessed on the civil standard of proof, and the principles governing them differ from those governing criminal proceedings; an acquittal in a prosecution under Section 498A IPC does not, by itself, establish that the allegations were false or that matrimonial cruelty occurred.

Gopal Verma v. Poona Bai, 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1092

The Court admitted the additional documents because they were relevant to adjudicating the appeal and fell within the appellate court’s power under Order XLI Rule 27(b) CPC.

On the merits, the husband’s witnesses lacked personal knowledge of events within the matrimonial home, while his own testimony did not establish that the wife had withdrawn from cohabitation without just cause.

His admission that he refused to resume cohabitation, together with the wife’s restitution-of-conjugal-rights proceeding, weighed against his desertion claim.

The documents concerning the alleged second marriage did not establish adultery; the relevant proceeding had been withdrawn on its first hearing, and the husband had not confronted the wife with the material.

Nor did his acquittal in the criminal case establish that the wife’s allegations were false.

The compromise-related material instead supported her account that he had promised to resume cohabitation but later refused.

The evidence therefore did not prove any pleaded ground for divorce.

It found no error in the Family Court’s dismissal of the petition and dismissed the appeal.