Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce

“If I had told you before marriage, you would have said no — now you have to bear me”: Wife’s own admission sealed the fate of marriage,  In a significant ruling Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, observing that concealment of a significant medical condition and sustained mental cruelty amounted to a justifiable ground for dissolution of marriage. The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad upheld the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, Kawardha, in favour of the husband, citing the wife’s suppression of infertility, disrespectful conduct, and irretrievable breakdown of marital ties as key factors.

The Court further awarded ₹5,00,000 as a one-time permanent alimony, to be paid by the husband within four months, holding that this sum shall “cover all pending and future claims” of the wife against the respondent.

“She knew she couldn’t conceive but said nothing before marriage”: Court calls concealment a cruel act

The marriage, solemnized on 5 June 2015, quickly soured after two months, when, according to the husband, the wife began taunting him for taking care of his elderly parents and dependent nephews and nieces. “You have opened an orphanage,” she would say, refusing to cook or cooperate in household responsibilities, the husband alleged.

More serious, however, was the accusation that the wife had suppressed her reproductive health condition. The husband narrated that he was overjoyed when the wife reported a missed period, believing she was pregnant. However, during a medical visit to a gynaecologist, the wife disclosed that she hadn’t menstruated for ten years. The doctor’s evaluation pointed towards uterine complications affecting her ability to conceive. When confronted, the wife reportedly admitted: “If I had told you before marriage, you would have said no — now you have to bear me.”

The High Court took serious note of this statement, describing it as a clear instance of deception and cruelty, observing that “such concealment of a vital medical fact that strikes at the core of marital expectations cannot be brushed aside.”

“She claims she’s cured but produced no evidence”: Failure to rebut allegations proved fatal to appeal

In her defence, the wife argued that the medical issue was temporary and curable, and that she had undergone treatment. She claimed that after taking medicines and doing yoga, she became capable of conceiving. However, in cross-examination, she admitted that she had not produced any medical certificate to support this claim.

The Court held, “The appellant failed to produce any medical document or expert testimony to prove her claim of recovery. In contrast, the husband produced a series of medical reports, including HSG and sonography records, which remained unchallenged.”

Referring to this gap in evidence, the Court found that the wife failed to effectively rebut the charge of suppression, and her claims of recovery remained unsubstantiated.

“They’ve lived apart for nine years”: Irretrievable breakdown confirmed

The parties had been living separately since 2016, with no signs of reconciliation for over nine years. The Court underscored that such prolonged estrangement reflects irretrievable breakdown of marriage, a factor that further supports the grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(a).

The Bench observed, “Both parties have unequivocally admitted to long-term separation. The social fabric of the marriage has already disintegrated, and no purpose will be served by forcing the parties to stay bound in law when they are already estranged in life.”

“Marital cruelty is not just violence—it is also indifference, humiliation and deception”: Court reinforces evolving standard of cruelty

Rejecting the wife’s claims that she was the victim of dowry demands and mistreatment, the Court found that the weight of the evidence tilted in favour of the husband’s version. The allegations of dowry articles were denied by the husband, and no criminal or civil proceedings were shown to be filed by the wife to support those claims.

Instead, the Court found that the combination of humiliating taunts, lack of cooperation, and concealment of a significant medical issue constituted mental cruelty. It reaffirmed the principle that cruelty is not confined to physical abuse. “Repeated humiliation, taunts, and indifference, especially on core issues like fertility and family, can cause deeper wounds than physical harm,” the Court noted.

₹5 lakh alimony awarded as one-time settlement—Court draws from recent Supreme Court precedent

Invoking the guiding principles laid down in Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 213, the High Court invoked its equitable jurisdiction to award ₹5,00,000 to the wife as permanent alimony. The amount is to be paid within four months, and the Court clarified that it would “cover all pending and future claims of the appellant against the respondent.”

This part of the judgment reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that even in a decree of divorce based on the wife’s fault, her economic rights are safeguarded, and she is not left without support.

Decree of divorce upheld—Court finds no fault in Family Court’s analysis

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Family Court’s decree dated 16 March 2022, observing that “no illegality or perversity” was found in its findings. The Court remarked that the Family Judge had “minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence” and rightly concluded that the marriage had broken down due to cruelty and concealment.

“Concealment of medical truth struck at the heart of marital trust”: Judgment reaffirms duty of honesty in matrimonial alliance

In summing up, the Chhattisgarh High Court emphasized that honesty and transparency in disclosing material facts before marriage—particularly regarding health and fertility—are crucial to the institution of marriage. The wife's conduct, it held, amounted to deliberate suppression, causing emotional trauma to the husband and frustrating his legitimate expectations.

“The appellant was well aware of her medical condition but chose not to disclose it. Her conduct resulted in psychological trauma and justifies divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act,” the Court concluded.

With this ruling, the Court sends a clear message that marriage founded on concealment and sustained cruelty cannot be legally sustained, and where mental cruelty is well-established, the law will not hesitate to dissolve the bond in pursuit of justice.

Date of Decision: 9 December 2025