High Court of Chhattisgarh affirms established Supreme Court interpretations on “mental cruelty”; upholds contextual evaluation as the standard for grant of divorce under Hindu Marriage Act. Serves as binding precedent for family law cases within the state and offers persuasive value beyond.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FAM/123/2018 of SMT. GODAWARI SAHU Vs CHANDRASHEKHAR PRASAD SAHU |
| CNR | CGHC010177072018 |
| Date of Registration | 05-06-2018 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal (for the Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Division Bench: Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Family law – Divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court reiterates that mental cruelty must be evaluated considering the entire matrimonial relationship, including the impact of conduct on the spouse’s physical and mental health. Application of categorical standards is discouraged; rather, a contextual, fact-based approach is required. Citing Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, the Court holds that allegations and evidence must reveal conduct that renders cohabitation unendurable. In this case, evidence demonstrated a sustained course of behaviour by the wife amounting to cruelty, justifying the grant of divorce. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit (2006) 3 SCC 778; Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed.); Halsbury’s Laws of England (Vol. 13, 4th Ed., Para 1269); American Jurisprudence; Supreme Court precedents on mental cruelty |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Parties married in 2008; have a minor son residing with the wife. Husband alleged persistent mistreatment and denial of access to the child by wife; claimed mental harassment. Wife denied allegations, counter-alleged cruelty and non-attendance at her father’s funeral. No independent evidence produced by wife. Husband’s case found credible by the Court. Divorce granted on cruelty, not desertion. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Supreme Court |
| Follows | Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit (2006) 3 SCC 778; Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that courts must assess cruelty relating to divorce contextually, not by isolated incidents or rigid categories.
- Relies heavily on comprehensive analysis of facts and the impact of conduct, as per Supreme Court guidelines.
- Confirms that mere allegations without cogent evidence or independent corroboration are insufficient to rebut credible testimony of mental cruelty.
- Advocates should prepare evidence addressing the entire matrimonial context rather than isolated acts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first reviewed the parties’ pleadings and testimonies, finding the respondent/husband’s evidence more credible, consistent, and supported by both his and his brother’s testimony.
- The appellant’s allegations, while serious, were unaccompanied by any police complaint, corroborating independent evidence, or detailed particulars such as dates or witnesses.
- Applying the Supreme Court’s directions in Vinita Saxena and Samar Ghosh, the Court affirmed that cruelty must be determined in the context of the totality of the marriage, focused on the effects of conduct rather than isolated acts.
- The Court found that the conduct of the wife, as established by evidence, met the threshold of mental cruelty by causing the husband sustained distress and denying him access to the minor child.
- The trial court’s findings on cruelty (but not desertion) were accepted as based on a sound appreciation of evidence and law, meriting no interference.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant – Smt. Godawari Sahu)
- Challenged findings of the trial court as being unsustainable in law and contrary to facts.
- Alleged that the trial court ignored appellant’s evidence and relied exclusively on respondent’s statement.
- Claimed respondent failed to specify any dates or particular incidents of cruelty.
- Asserted willingness to reside with the husband and pointed to contradictions in respondent’s cross-examination regarding his desire to continue the marriage.
- Highlighted that she had not filed a police complaint because she wished to keep the marriage intact.
Respondent (Chandrashekhar Prasad Sahu)
- Maintained that the appellant persistently misbehaved and mentally harassed the respondent and his family.
- Stated that the appellant refused conjugal life, denied access to their minor son, and did not reconcile despite efforts.
- Justified the grant of divorce as well merited and based on the evidence.
Factual Background
The parties married on 17.04.2008 and have a son who resides with the wife. Shortly after marriage, the husband claimed the wife’s behaviour changed, allegedly involving mistreatment towards him and his parents, refusal to live with him, and denial of access to their son. The wife countered with allegations of cruelty and humiliation, but these were not supported by any complaint or corroborating evidence. The husband, a government employee, sought divorce, which was granted on the ground of cruelty by the family court, and the decision was appealed by the wife.
Statutory Analysis
- The case centered on Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, particularly the ground of “cruelty.”
- The Court clarified that “mental cruelty” must involve conduct rendering marital life unendurable for the aggrieved spouse.
- Relied on authoritative Supreme Court precedents delineating the standards for what constitutes mental cruelty, emphasizing a holistic evaluation.
- No “reading down” or amplification of statutory language; the court applied existing interpretation.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment; the Division Bench delivered a unanimous opinion.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or directions were issued. The Court followed established appellate and evidentiary procedures as per law.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court standards reaffirmed.