Wife Left For Festival, Told Police She Wanted To Stay With Parents: Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Divorce For Cruelty

The parties married on 21 April 2014.

The husband sought divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty, including that the wife left the matrimonial home in July 2014 and refused to resume cohabitation, and made false allegations against him.

The wife denied desertion and cruelty, asserting that she went to her parental home with the husband’s consent and had been harassed at the matrimonial home.

The Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty on 30 November 2022; the wife appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 permits divorce where one spouse has treated the other with cruelty; mental cruelty is assessed in light of the parties’ circumstances and the overall course of their matrimonial life.

The court relied on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, for the illustrative, non-exhaustive indicators of mental cruelty, and on Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, (2017) 14 SCC 194, and K. Srinivas v. K. Sunita, (2014) 16 SCC 34, concerning knowingly false accusations or complaints.

It also cited K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226, Narasimha Sastry v. Suneela Rani, (2020) 18 SCC 247, and Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, (2023) 17 SCC 433, on when false or repeated proceedings may constitute cruelty; Vidhya Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan, (2014) 15 SCC 21, on prolonged refusal of marital intimacy; and Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh, Civil Appeal No. 8391 of 2026, on the reciprocal responsibilities of marriage.

The court found that the wife admitted she had gone to her parental home in July 2014 and remained there, while her police applications and the Women’s Cell record indicated that she wished to reside separately and did not seek further counselling or proceedings.

It considered this evidence, together with the parties’ prolonged separation, as supporting the husband’s case of withdrawal from matrimonial life without sufficient cause.

The court also relied on the dismissal of the wife’s maintenance and domestic-violence proceedings and concluded that her allegations against the husband were false; however, it noted that those proceedings were initiated after the divorce petition and held that its conclusion was independently supported by the other evidence.

Assessing the evidence cumulatively, the court held that the wife’s conduct amounted to mental cruelty.

It found no perversity or legal error warranting appellate interference.