Does Filing False Criminal Cases and Persistent Litigation by a Spouse Amount to “Cruelty” and “Desertion” Sufficient for Divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act? – Binding Clarification by the Chhattisgarh High Court (2025)

The Chhattisgarh High Court holds that repeated false criminal complaints and sustained refusal to resume matrimonial cohabitation, without reasonable cause, constitute “cruelty” and “desertion” under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, warranting divorce. This judgment follows and applies Supreme Court precedents, and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts on similar facts.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Reaffirms that acquittal in 498-A IPC and domestic violence cases, when accompanied by persistent false complaints and refusal to resume cohabitation without reasonable justification, amounts to “mental cruelty” under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA.
• Failure of a spouse to prove reasonable cause for living separately, despite repeated bona fide reconciliation efforts by the other spouse, constitutes “desertion” under Section 13(1)(i-b).
• The fact that criminal cases ended in acquittal and complaints were dismissed is critical evidence supporting allegations of cruelty and desertion.
• The Chhattisgarh High Court explicitly applies and follows Supreme Court precedents, making its ruling binding within the State and strongly persuasive elsewhere.
• Lawyers may cite this judgment to support divorce petitions based on similar fact patterns, especially where respondents have initiated unsubstantiated criminal proceedings or deserted without valid cause.
• Permanent alimony can be awarded in addition to maintenance previously granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C., guided by Supreme Court reasoning.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The court reviewed the factual matrix, highlighting that the wife left the matrimonial home in 2011 and did not return despite multiple efforts by the husband (social meetings, applications under Sections 97 and 98 Cr.P.C.).
• Noted that the wife initiated multiple criminal complaints, including 498-A IPC and Domestic Violence cases; all resulted in acquittal/dismissal.
• Relied on K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226 to hold that persistently filing false/unsubstantiated criminal complaints and failing to prove cruelty inflicts “mental cruelty” on the other spouse.
• Quoted Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati (AIR 1957 SC 176) and Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur (2025) 3 SCC 790 to explain that “desertion” requires both separation and intention to remain apart (animus deserendi) with no reasonable justification.
• Found that both “cruelty” and “desertion” were established by the evidence (factum of separation, failed reconciliation, conduct of the parties, and absence of reasonable cause).
• The Family Court’s contrary finding was held perverse and unsupported by the evidence.
• Followed Supreme Court guidelines on permanent alimony by awarding Rs. 15,00,000.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Applicant-Husband)

• The wife lived separately since 2011 without reasonable cause and refused reconciliation attempts.
• The wife filed repeated false criminal cases including under Section 498-A IPC, all of which ended in acquittal.
• The wife’s conduct, including abusive behavior and violence, constituted cruelty and led to irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
• The wife assaulted the husband in court premises, further evidencing cruelty.

Respondent (Non-Applicant-Wife)

• The husband and his family demanded dowry and harassed her, including after birth of a female child.
• She was compelled to leave matrimonial home due to ill-treatment.
• Denied allegations of refusing reconciliation; alleged it was the husband who did not take her back.
• Claimed the husband and his family ousted her and did not permit her return despite assurances and social meetings.

Factual Background

The marriage between the parties was solemnized in February 2010, and a daughter was born from the wedlock. In 2011, the wife left the matrimonial home, asserting harassment and dowry demands, while the husband claimed she did so without justifiable cause. The husband made several efforts to reconcile, including convening social meetings and filing applications under Sections 97 and 98 Cr.P.C., but the wife did not return. The wife initiated criminal and domestic violence complaints against the husband and his family, all of which resulted in acquittal. Meanwhile, the husband paid the wife maintenance as ordered in separate proceedings.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“cruelty”): The court interpreted “mental cruelty” to include persistent filing of unsubstantiated criminal complaints by one spouse, following K. Srinivas Rao (2013) and relevant Supreme Court directions.
• Section 13(1)(i-b) (“desertion”): The statutory requirements—factum of separation, animus deserendi, absence of consent, and no reasonable cause—are analyzed based on Supreme Court pronouncements and found to be satisfied.
• Explanation to Section 13(1): Court referred to the statutory explanation of “desertion” including wilful neglect.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting opinion; both judges concurred in the judgment and reasoning.

Procedural Innovations

• Allowed fresh additional evidence (judgment of acquittal in criminal case) at appellate stage under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, recognizing necessity for proper adjudication in light of delayed availability of crucial criminal judgment.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – The bench followed and applied existing Supreme Court precedent on the interpretation of “cruelty” and “desertion” in matrimonial disputes.

Citations

• 2025:CGHC:44824-DB (Neutral Citation)
• K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226
• Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur (2025) 3 SCC 790
• Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky (2022) 5 SCC 459
• Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 SC 176