The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a husband's acquittal in a criminal proceeding under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code does not, by itself, establish that the allegations constituting cruelty against him were false. The Court observed that cruelty must be determined by examining the evidence in the matrimonial proceedings as a whole.

A division bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sushma Sawant was hearing an appeal filed by a husband challenging the Family Court's dismissal of his petition seeking divorce.

The husband alleged that his wife had subjected him and to mental and physical harassment by lodging complaints alleging dowry harassment against the plaintiff and his family members, pursuant to which a criminal case for offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. He contended that his acquittal in the criminal proceedings established that the allegations were false and that the wife's conduct amounted to mental cruelty.

The Court found that the husband's witnesses lacked personal knowledge of the alleged incidents between the parties and had largely deposed on the basis of what they had heard from others. It also found no cogent evidence to establish that the wife had deserted the husband without justifiable cause or was living in adultery.

On the allegation of cruelty, the Court held that mere acquittal under Section 498A IPC could not establish that the allegations were false.

“Mere acquittal in a criminal proceeding under Section 498A of the IPC does not, by itself, establish that the allegations constituting cruelty were false. For determining whether cruelty has in fact been established, the evidence available in the matrimonial proceedings has to be examined as a whole,” the Court remarked.

The Court also examined the circumstances surrounding a compromise in a separate criminal proceeding under Section 307 IPC. The wife had not supported the prosecution case against the husband in view of the compromise, resulting in his acquittal.

However, the husband subsequently refused to resume cohabitation with her despite the assurance underlying the compromise. The Court held that this conduct supported the wife's case that the husband was unwilling to keep her with him and was subjecting her to cruelty.

“…the appellant/plaintiff husband did not adhere to his promise i.e. terms of the compromise and started refusing to keep the wife with him. Such conduct of the appellant/plaintiff husband lends support to the wife's case and indicates that he was, in fact, unwilling to keep her with him and was subjecting her to cruelty,” the Court observed.

Finding no cogent evidence to establish cruelty, desertion or adultery on the wife's part, the Court held that the Family Court had committed no error in dismissing the husband's divorce petition. It accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Lokesh Sinha v. Smt. Kusumlata Sinha & Anr. [FAM No. 133 of 2015]