The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside a divorce decree granted by a Family Court after finding that the husband failed to establish allegations of mental cruelty and desertion against his wife. A Division Bench comprising Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput held that the allegations that the wife had taunted her husband over his complexion, private-sector employment and professional status were not supported by sufficient evidence. The court concluded that the claims did not meet the legal requirements for granting divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The couple married in Bilaspur on February 21, 2019, but marital discord developed soon after their wedding. The husband had approached the Family Court seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging mental cruelty and desertion. He claimed that his wife, a government nurse, considered him professionally incompatible with her and frequently quarrelled with him and his family. He also alleged that she criticised his dark complexion and private-sector job, refused to live with him and left the matrimonial home on January 7, 2020.

The husband had further alleged that his wife threatened to file false dowry cases against him. The Family Court at Bilaspur accepted his allegations and granted a divorce decree on December 12, 2023. The wife subsequently challenged the decision before the High Court, maintaining that she had remained willing to live with her husband and fulfil her matrimonial responsibilities. She argued that her separate residence was connected to her government posting in Dhamdha, Durg, and should not be treated as voluntary desertion.

Also Read: IIT Madras Director's Career Comes Under Focus After Priyanka's Remark

The wife also told the High Court that her husband knew about her profession before their marriage and had accepted it at the time. She alleged that she had instead faced dowry-related harassment, including demands for Rs 5 lakh, her salary and her ATM card. She also pointed out that she had sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in an effort to preserve the marriage. According to her, the circumstances demonstrated that she had not intended to abandon the relationship.

After examining the evidence, the High Court noted that the couple had known each other and mutually liked each other before their marriage. The Bench found no substance in the husband's allegation that his wife's professional status or his complexion had made him incompatible with her. The court observed that if she had held such reservations, it was unlikely that she would have agreed to marry him. Holding that the Family Court had relied on an erroneous appreciation of the evidence, the High Court allowed the wife's appeal and quashed the divorce decree, concluding that the husband had failed to prove mental cruelty or desertion.

Also Read: Maharashtra Bans Literature Linked To Terror Outfits Over Violent Extremism