The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that allegations that a wife called her husband “black-complexioned” or “fat” are not, by themselves, sufficient to establish matrimonial cruelty warranting a decree of divorce. A Division Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput dismissed the husband’s appeal after finding that he had failed to prove cruelty or desertion through cogent evidence.
The appeal challenged an August 28, 2024 judgment of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, which had rejected the husband’s petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court had also allowed the wife’s application under Section 27 of the Act and directed the husband to return the gifts and stridhan given by her parents as mentioned in Schedule A.
Background
The parties were married on March 7, 2019 according to Hindu rites and rituals. According to the husband, the wife lived with him and his family for about two to three months after the marriage.
He alleged that she treated him with hostility, threatened to implicate him in false cases and frequently went to her parental home. He also claimed that she went to Rajasthan to attend a relative’s marriage without his consent and later suffered a miscarriage.
The husband further claimed that the wife’s mother subsequently took her to Raigarh and that, despite repeated attempts on his part, she refused to return to the matrimonial home. He approached the Counselling Centre at Janjgir and later went with members of his community to bring her back, but according to him, she again refused to accompany him.
The wife denied the allegations. She alleged that the husband was in an illicit relationship with another woman and that after she came to know about it, he started consuming alcohol, abusing her and failed to properly care for her, including during pregnancy.
She stated that when she became unwell, her mother took her to Raigarh for treatment. According to her, after recovering, she and her mother repeatedly asked the husband and his family to take her back, but they did not do so. She also initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.
The Family Court found that the husband had failed to prove cruelty as well as desertion and dismissed his divorce petition.
Husband Challenged Family Court Findings
Before the High Court, the husband argued that the Family Court had failed to properly appreciate the pleadings and evidence.
His counsel submitted that the wife had been living separately since December 2019 without sufficient or justifiable reason and had not resumed cohabitation despite his willingness to continue the matrimonial relationship.
He also argued that there was no evidence concerning the stridhan and questioned the Family Court’s decision to allow the wife’s application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The wife opposed the appeal and maintained that the Family Court’s findings were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence.
Calling Husband ‘Black-Complexioned’ or ‘Fat’ Not Enough
After examining the evidence, the High Court held that the husband had failed to establish the essential ingredients of cruelty and desertion.
The Court specifically considered his allegation that the wife used to describe him as being “black complexioned” or “fatty shaped”. It held that such allegations could not, by themselves, constitute sufficient ground for granting divorce.
The Court observed:
“Of course, he has alleged that the respondent/wife used to brand him as being a black complexioned or a fatty shaped but they cannot be taken to be sufficient ground for granting a decree of divorce to him.”
The High Court further noted that although the husband had made several allegations against the wife, none of them had been substantiated through cogent evidence.
Cruelty Not Established
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, dealing with the concept of mental cruelty in matrimonial disputes.
It noted that the Supreme Court had held that no uniform standard could be laid down for determining mental cruelty and had identified certain instances of human behaviour only as illustrative and not exhaustive.
Applying those principles to the case, the High Court found nothing on record that could bring the wife’s conduct within the scope of matrimonial cruelty.
The Court further stressed that merely making numerous allegations could not substitute the requirement of proof.
It said:
“May be, the allegations are many in number by the appellant/husband but in the absence of any pin-pointed evidence to substantiate the same, they cannot be made basis for granting decree of divorce in his favour.”
Desertion Also Not Proved
On the allegation of desertion, the High Court found that the husband had failed to establish that the wife was staying with her parents without reasonable cause.
The Court noted the evidence of the wife’s mother that after the wife suffered a miscarriage, she went to see her and the husband’s family members sent the wife with her. The wife also maintained that the husband had made no effort to bring her back or keep her with him.
The Bench held that the husband had failed to prove the requisite animus deserendi on the part of the wife.
Appeal Dismissed
The High Court concluded that the Family Court’s findings were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and did not warrant interference.
Accordingly, the husband’s appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit. No costs were imposed.
Case Details
Case Title: Akash Ghosh v. Smt. Pooja Seet
Case No.: FA(MAT) No. 325 of 2024
Bench: Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Date: September 18, 2026
