Read Time: 07 minutes

The Chhattisgarh High Court held that if a spouse raises extramarital affair allegations on his/her partner without any proof, it would amount to mental cruelty and granted divorce to a man from his wife.

A division bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice N. K. Chandravanshi was hearing an appeal filed by the husband, who challenged the order of a Family Court in Bilaspur, which refused to grant a decree of divorce on his plea, on the grounds of "cruelty" and "desertion" and allowed it. 

"It is obvious that to suffer an allegation pertaining to once character of having an extra marital affair is quite tortuous for any person and whereas inconsistently in the statement and only allegation of extra marital affair is raised by the wife casually against the husband certainly which always has a bad impact in image of a person qua the society, therefore, would amount to mental cruelty," the bench held.

The appellant's wife had alleged that her husband had an illicit relationship with a lady, which consequently damaged the husband’s reputation in the society, amounting to cruelty, and therefore, she claimed for divorce on the aforementioned grounds.

The High Court relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate V. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) and held that,

“When the assassination of character is made by either of the parties it would constitute a mental cruelty for which a claim for divorce under Section 13(1) (I-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, (HMA) 1955 would be sustainable”.

The appellant (husband) on the other hand pleaded that he was married to the respondent (wife) on January 31, 1986. He then stated that his wife deserted him without any lawful cause from September 15, 2011.

The appellant alleged the wife to have availed different loans ranging from Rs. 10-12 Lacs, without his knowledge and had even placed the ornaments that were meant for the marriage of their daughter as a pledge to different creditors.

To support the case, the appellant examined his son and daughter, who testified that their maternal grandmother and aunt often asked financial help from their mother and then, she often took loans from different creditors.

In Addition, the appellant further examined a person who had given Rs. 25,000 loan to his wife (respondent).

The bench after hearing the rival contentions was of the view that the children had supported the father’s claims against the mother.

Court observed that, “The conduct of the wife which has been projected and incidentally the children, who have supported such fact against the mother that she without the knowledge of her husband has done away with the security of the marriage of the daughter and has obtained amount from the creditor by pledging the ornaments meant for the marriage of the daughter would certainly cause apprehension & fear and create financial pressure on the mind of the father as we cannot also forget the hard reality which exists in the society to present a girl during the marriage with ornaments," 

"Consequently, if a spouse by her own conduct, in such a way without caring about the future of the daughter, parts with the ornaments which were meant for the marriage, it will be within the ambit of mental cruelty done by the wife," court stated.

Therefore, the court allowed the plea on the ground of cruelty stated in Section 13(1) (i-a) of the HMA, 1955.

Case Title: S. Raju v. S. Rani