The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a husband's acquittal in a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code does not, by itself, establish that his wife made false allegations or subjected him to matrimonial cruelty. The Court stressed that evidence in divorce proceedings must be assessed independently, according to the circumstances of the matrimonial dispute.
A Division Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sushma Sawant dismissed a husband's appeal seeking divorce, upholding the Family Court's decision to reject his petition. The husband had relied on his acquittal, alleged desertion and claims of an extramarital relationship to seek dissolution of the marriage.
Background
In Lokesh Sinha v. Smt. Kusumlata Sinha & Another, the parties married on March 23, 2010. The husband alleged that his wife had treated him cruelly, left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason and maintained a relationship with another man. He also claimed that criminal proceedings initiated against him and his family had caused mental harassment.
The wife denied these allegations and maintained that she had faced dowry-related harassment. She also disputed the claim that she had deserted her husband, stating that she had attempted to resume matrimonial life.
The Family Court at Rajnandgaon rejected the husband's divorce petition on July 2, 2015. He challenged that decision before the High Court.
The High Court found that the husband's witnesses lacked direct knowledge of the alleged incidents. It also noted that the wife had sought to resume cohabitation, while the husband had refused to take her back. The evidence did not establish desertion or adultery by the wife.
On the acquittal argument, the Bench observed:
“Mere acquittal in a criminal proceeding under Section 498A of the IPC does not, by itself, establish that the allegations constituting cruelty were false. For determining whether cruelty has in fact been established, the evidence available in the matrimonial proceedings has to be examined as a whole.”
The Court also considered a compromise in a separate criminal case under Section 307 IPC. It noted that the wife had not supported the prosecution following the compromise, but the husband subsequently refused to resume cohabitation despite the assurance underlying the settlement.
The judgment stated:
“Such conduct of the appellant/plaintiff husband lends support to the wife's case and indicates that he was, in fact, unwilling to keep her with him and was subjecting her to cruelty.”
The Bench concluded that there was no cogent evidence proving cruelty, desertion or adultery on the wife's part.
It found no error in the Family Court's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the husband's appeal, leaving the rejection of his divorce petition undisturbed.
