Divorce | Unsubstantiated Allegations Of Illicit Relationship Against Spouse Constitute Mental Cruelty: Chhattisgarh High Court

"In matrimonial relationship, cruelty would obviously mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between the spouses which embitters the relationship and often leads to various outbursts of behaviour which can be termed as cruelty." Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed a decree of divorce granted to a husband, holding that persistent, unsubstantiated allegations of illicit relationships between spouses amount to mental cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sushma Sawant emphasized that such conduct, which lacks evidentiary support, irreparably damages the marital bond.

The marriage between the parties was solemnized in 2016. The husband, a government employee, sought dissolution of the marriage on grounds of cruelty, alleging that the wife refused to perform household duties, frequently abandoned the matrimonial home, and maintained an illicit relationship with a third party. The wife contested the suit, denying these allegations and asserting that she was subjected to harassment by the husband and his family, further alleging that the husband himself was involved in extramarital affairs.

The primary question before the Court was whether the conduct of the wife, characterized by allegations and counter-allegations of infidelity without supporting evidence, constituted mental cruelty warranting a decree of divorce. The Court was also called upon to determine the maintainability of a fresh claim for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act during appellate proceedings.

Cruelty as a Multifaceted Concept

The Court observed that no "straitjacket formula" exists to define mental or physical cruelty in matrimonial law. Relying on established precedents like Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi and Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni, the bench reiterated that cruelty is assessed based on the specific facts, gestures, and conduct of the parties that erode mutual respect.

Finding of Mental Cruelty

The bench noted that while both parties leveled grave allegations of infidelity against each other, the husband’s case regarding the wife's conduct appeared more credible due to specific admissions and procedural lapses by the wife. The Court drew an adverse inference against the wife because her mother, who had filed an affidavit in her support, failed to enter the witness box for cross-examination.

"The wife’s alleged closeness with another person would, in the circumstances, constitute mental cruelty towards the husband. Likewise, making allegations against the husband of having an illicit relationship with another woman, without sufficient basis, may also constitute mental cruelty."

Absence of Intent to Cohabit

The Court further observed that the wife’s conduct throughout the litigation revealed a lack of genuine intent to resume cohabitation. The bench highlighted that her primary focus appeared to be on peripheral issues rather than salvaging the marital tie, thereby justifying the trial court's decision to grant the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Procedure for Permanent Alimony

Regarding the wife's application for permanent alimony filed for the first time during the appeal, the Court held that it could not adjudicate such a claim in the absence of evidence led before the trial court. The bench clarified that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act requires a factual inquiry into the financial capacity, income, and standard of living of both parties.

"The claim for alimony cannot appropriately be adjudicated by this Court for the first time in appellate jurisdiction, without the relevant facts and material having been considered by the Court of first instance."

Liberty to Initiate Fresh Proceedings

Consequently, while the Court affirmed the divorce decree, it granted the wife the liberty to initiate separate proceedings for permanent alimony before the competent court. The Court ruled that such a claim must be supported by appropriate evidence, including the mandatory financial disclosure affidavits as prescribed in Rajnesh v. Neha.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the dissolution of the marriage, citing the breakdown of the marital relationship due to persistent mental cruelty. The ruling reinforces that appellate courts will not entertain claims for permanent alimony if the parties failed to lay the necessary evidentiary foundation before the trial court, leaving the door open for a fresh application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Date of Decision: 24 September 2026