Wife’s Unsupported Claim Husband Had Affair With Sister-In-Law, Plus Refusal To Resume Cohabitation, Leads Chhattisgarh HC To Uphold Divorce For Cruelty

The parties married on 8 December 2015 and had a son

The husband sought divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that the wife had mistreated his family, made baseless allegations about his character, and refused to resume cohabitation

The wife denied the allegations and maintained that the husband had sent her to her parental home and failed to take her back

The Family Court granted the husband a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty

The wife appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 permits divorce where one spouse has treated the other with cruelty.

As cruelty is not defined by the Act, its assessment depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The Court relied on V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337; Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC 706; Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511; and Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558.

The illustrative principles in Samar Ghosh include that sustained conduct causing serious mental pain may constitute cruelty, while ordinary marital disagreements and isolated incidents generally do not; reckless, baseless allegations impugning a spouse’s character or fidelity may also amount to mental cruelty, depending on the circumstances

The Court found that the husband and his witnesses gave consistent evidence, and that cross-examination disclosed no material undermining their reliability

It considered the wife’s suggestions in cross-examination that the husband had an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law, finding no evidential foundation for those serious allegations.

The Court also relied on the wife’s and her father’s admissions concerning her departures to her parental home, the husband’s efforts to bring her back, and his provision of care and medical expenses during pregnancy and delivery

Further admissions indicated that the wife had refused to accompany the husband, including during counselling

Viewed cumulatively, the baseless character allegations and her unwillingness to resume cohabitation supported the finding of mental cruelty

It dismissed the appeal, affirmed the decree of divorce, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.