What happens if criminal charges between spouses collapse in court? Chhattisgarh high court explains legal impact on marriage

RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh high court held that forcing a spouse to undergo a prolonged criminal trial on serious allegations that ultimately end in acquittal can amount to mental cruelty, and set aside a family court order that had refused to dissolve the marriage.

Observing that the husband and his family faced a seven-year trial under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005 without proof, the court ruled that the distress of defending one’s honour against unsubstantiated accusations constitutes cruelty. The bench further held that the parties’ seven-year separation and the wife’s refusal to resume cohabitation also established desertion, justifying dissolution of the marriage.

A division bench of Justice Sanjay K Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma examined not only the original pleadings and evidence before the Family Court at Balodabazar but also a later development during the appeal — the acquittal of the husband and his family members in a criminal case lodged by the wife under Section 498A IPC and the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005.

Background of the case
The husband had sought dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. According to his case, the marriage was solemnised on February 15, 2015. He alleged that the wife stayed with him for only 10 to 11 days after the marriage and then returned to her parental home.

He further claimed that she pressured him to live separately from his aged and ailing parents and threatened to implicate him in a false case if he refused. He said that since July 2017 she had been residing separately without any valid reason.

A central part of his case was the FIR lodged by the wife in 2018 against him and his family members for offences under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and under the anti-tonhi law. He pleaded that this criminal case amounted to mental cruelty.

He also relied on counselling before the Family Welfare Committee on July 23, 2018, where, according to him, the wife clearly stated that she was unwilling to live in her matrimonial home by leaving her parents. He argued that the long separation of more than five to six years also constituted desertion.

The Family Court rejected the divorce plea, holding that neither cruelty nor desertion had been proved.

Appellant husband’s arguments
Before the high court, the husband argued that the Family Court’s decision had been overtaken by a crucial later event. During the pendency of the appeal, on June 16, 2025, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatgaon, acquitted him, his father, mother and two brothers of the charges under Section 498A/34 IPC and Section 5 of the Tonhi Pratadna law.

He moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to place the acquittal judgment on record. His submission was that the acquittal reinforced his plea that the wife had subjected him to cruelty by filing a false criminal complaint.

He relied on Supreme Court decisions, including Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, to contend that false criminal proceedings and unsubstantiated allegations can amount to mental cruelty.

Response of respondent wife
The wife opposed both the appeal and the application for additional evidence. Her counsel argued that although the criminal court had acquitted the accused persons, a further appeal against that acquittal was to be filed. On that basis, it was urged that the acquittal should not be treated as conclusive for the present matrimonial appeal.

A second objection related to procedure. The wife argued that Order 41 CPC had not been expressly made applicable by Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and therefore an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was not maintainable in an appeal under Section 19(1) of that Act.

HC’s analysis
The high court first examined whether it could take the acquittal judgment on record. It noted that Section 10 of the Family Courts Act applies provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to suits and proceedings before Family Courts, but Order 41 is not expressly made applicable to appeals under Section 19. At the same time, Section 19 does not specifically address the power to admit additional evidence.

The bench then relied on broader appellate principles, observing that a first appeal is a valuable substantive right and a continuation of the original proceedings. It held that an express grant of appellate jurisdiction carries, by necessary implication, incidental and ancillary powers required to make that jurisdiction effective.

Invoking the doctrine of ex debito justitiae, the court ruled that even without an express provision, the high court hearing an appeal under the Family Courts Act can admit additional evidence if two conditions are met: the matter sought to be supported must already be pleaded, and the court must require the evidence to pronounce judgment or for another substantial cause.

Since the husband had already pleaded that the criminal case filed by the wife was false and constituted cruelty, and the subsequent acquittal directly related to that issue, the court allowed the additional document on record.

Relying on the criminal court’s finding that cruelty, dowry demand and tonhi-related harassment were not proved, the bench held that the husband and his family had faced a seven-year criminal trial on serious allegations affecting their reputation. The sustained distress of defending against such unsubstantiated accusations, it held, amounted to mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The court also found desertion established, noting that the parties had lived separately for seven years and that the wife had refused to resume cohabitation without reasonable cause.

Legal significance
First, it clarifies that the high court, while hearing an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, can exercise incidental and ancillary powers to admit additional evidence even without an express statutory incorporation of Order 41 CPC, said Sunil Sahu, who represented the appellant husband.

Second, it reinforces the principle that a prolonged criminal prosecution initiated by one spouse, ending in acquittal and found to be unsupported by cogent evidence, can amount to mental cruelty in matrimonial law, he added.

Why it matters
If a false prosecution is filed by the wife against the husband and his family members and they are subsequently acquitted, it would amount to cruelty, said the appellant’s counsel, Sunil Sahu. Additional evidence can also be produced at the appellate stage in matrimonial cases, he added.

Key takeaways from the judgment
The high court treated the later acquittal in the criminal case as a material subsequent event directly relevant to the plea of cruelty. It held that appellate powers under the Family Courts Act include implied authority to admit such evidence when justice requires. It also drew a clear distinction between the mere filing of a complaint and the consequences of a long criminal trial ending in acquittal. On facts, it found both mental cruelty and desertion proved.

The final order
The high court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court’s judgment and decree dated January 18, 2023, and granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband. The marriage solemnised on February 15, 2015 was dissolved.

The court also recorded that the wife had not claimed permanent alimony either by application or in her written statement, but reserved liberty for her to seek permanent alimony separately under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.