The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that lodging a false criminal complaint under Section 498A of the IPC, resulting in prolonged trial and eventual acquittal, constitutes mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This ruling establishes a critical precedent for matrimonial disputes where allegations of dowry harassment are used as instruments of legal and social coercion.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Dharmendra Sahu, sought divorce from his wife, Sandhya Sahu, on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage, solemnized on 28-4-2009, produced two daughters. On 10-4-2017, the respondent filed a criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC against the appellant, his brother, and his mother, alleging dowry harassment. The appellant was never arrested but faced a five-year criminal trial. On 25-4-2022, the Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted all accused, finding the prosecution’s evidence unreliable and the allegations unsubstantiated. The respondent appealed the acquittal, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 17-4-2023. A criminal revision filed by her before the High Court was dismissed on 14-10-2024.
Procedural History
- 2017: FIR registered under Section 498A IPC at Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari
- 2022: Acquittal granted by Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No.460/2017 (Ex.P-8)
- 2023: Appeal against acquittal dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)
- 2023: Civil suit for divorce filed by appellant in Family Court, Dhamtari
- 2023: Family Court dismissed divorce petition, holding criminal revision pending
- 2025: High Court initially granted divorce and alimony; Supreme Court set aside and remanded for fresh consideration
- 2026: High Court, on remand, allowed appeal and granted divorce
Relief Sought
The appellant sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of mental cruelty, arguing that the false criminal proceedings caused severe psychological trauma, social stigma, and prolonged legal anxiety. He also sought to establish that the respondent’s conduct met the threshold of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the filing of a false and unsubstantiated complaint under Section 498A of the IPC, resulting in acquittal after a five-year trial, constitutes mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, sufficient to warrant a decree of divorce.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa to argue that the initiation of false criminal proceedings, even if not resulting in conviction, inflicts severe mental anguish and social degradation. He emphasized that the appellant endured five years of litigation, public humiliation, and fear of arrest, all of which align with the Supreme Court’s definition of mental cruelty as sustained, malicious conduct causing deep anguish. He further contended that the acquittal itself validates the falsity of the allegations and underscores the intentional nature of the respondent’s conduct.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel opposed the appeal, relying on Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta, arguing that mere filing of an FIR or criminal complaint cannot be equated with cruelty. He asserted that the respondent was exercising her legal right to seek redressal and that the pendency of a revision petition indicated the seriousness of her claims. He maintained that the Family Court was correct in refusing divorce until all criminal remedies were exhausted.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the legal framework governing mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It referenced Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, which defines mental cruelty as conduct causing such anguish that married life becomes intolerable. The Court held that the respondent’s actions were not mere marital discord but a calculated, malicious use of criminal law to inflict harm.
"When a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of the allegation of offence under Section 498-A IPC, levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has been meted out on the husband."
The Court distinguished Darshan Gupta, where the complaint was not found to be false, from the present case where the criminal court explicitly found the prosecution’s evidence unreliable and the allegations unsubstantiated. The acquittal, affirmed by both appellate and revisional courts, was treated as conclusive evidence of the complaint’s falsity. The Court further noted that the appellant’s reputation, social standing, and mental health were irreparably damaged by the prolonged litigation, satisfying the criteria of "sustained reprehensible conduct" and "intentional infliction of mental suffering" under Samar Ghosh.
The Court also invoked Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, to take judicial notice of the acquittal and dismissal orders, despite their non-exhibition, as they were matters of public record before the same court.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Court held that the respondent’s filing of a false and unsubstantiated complaint under Section 498A IPC, leading to a five-year criminal trial and eventual acquittal, constitutes mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce. The respondent was granted liberty to file a separate application for permanent alimony under Section 25.
What This Means For Similar Cases
False Criminal Complaints Are Not Legally Innocuous
- Practitioners must now argue that filing false 498A complaints is not a protected legal right but a potential act of cruelty
- Acquittal in criminal proceedings is not merely a procedural outcome - it is substantive evidence of malice
- Courts must evaluate the impact of prolonged litigation on the accused spouse’s mental health, not just the outcome
Acquittal Can Be the Basis for Divorce
- A divorce petition need not await finality of all criminal appeals if the acquittal is clear and the allegations are demonstrably false
- The burden shifts to the complainant to show the complaint was not malicious; mere pendency of revision does not negate cruelty
- Judicial notice of acquittal orders under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act can be taken even if not formally exhibited
Mental Cruelty Requires Contextual Evaluation
- Isolated quarrels or emotional distress are insufficient; the conduct must be sustained and severe
- Social stigma, fear of arrest, and reputational damage are valid components of mental cruelty
- Courts must move beyond formalistic interpretations and consider the lived experience of the aggrieved spouse
