Case at a Glance
A husband sought divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging among other things that his wife insulted him over his complexion and weight and refused to return after going to her parental home. The Family Court, Janjgir rejected his petition and allowed the wife’s application for return of stridhan. A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed his appeal, holding that the allegations were not proved by cogent and clinching evidence, that remarks branding him “black complexioned” or “fatty shaped” cannot by themselves be sufficient ground for divorce, and that the evidence showed the husband’s family had forcibly sent the wife away after a miscarriage.
The parties married on 7 March 2019 at Raigarh according to Hindu rites. The husband said the wife lived with him for two or three months and then went to her parental home and refused to return despite his efforts, including at a counselling centre in Janjgir on 5 November 2019 and at Raigarh on 16 December 2019. He alleged hostility, threats of false cases, frequent visits to her parents, travel to Rajasthan without his consent, and that she insulted him about his complexion and weight. A miscarriage also occurred during the marriage.
The wife denied the allegations except the marriage. She alleged that the husband had an illicit relationship, drank, abused her and neglected her medical care during pregnancy, and that he never tried to bring her back; domestic violence proceedings were pending at Raigarh. By judgment dated 28 August 2024, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir (Civil Suit No. 129A/22) dismissed the husband’s petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and allowed the wife’s application under Section 27 for return of stridhan within one month.
The Key Question Before the Court
Did the husband prove cruelty or desertion under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and can allegations that the wife mocked his complexion and weight, by themselves, justify a decree of divorce?
Allegations Need Proof; Who Sent Whom Away Matters
Writing for the Bench, Justice Sachin Singh Rajput referred to Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 03 SC CK 0016, (2007) 4 SCC 511, which lists illustrative instances of mental cruelty. Tested against the evidence, the husband’s allegations fell short: “they have not been proved by adducing any cogent and clinching evidence in this regard.” On the remarks about his looks, the Court said: “Of course, he has alleged that the respondent/wife used to brand him as being a black complexioned or a fatty shaped but they cannot be taken to be sufficient ground for granting a decree of divorce to him.”
On desertion, the Court relied on the evidence of the wife’s mother, who stated that she had gone to see her daughter at the time of the miscarriage and that “it is the family members of the appellant/husband who had forcibly sent the respondent/wife with her.” The husband had also made no real effort to take her back. The Court therefore held that “the appellant/husband has failed to prove the requisite animus deserendi on the part of the respondent/wife”, and that the Family Court’s judgment appeared to be based on a just and proper appreciation of the evidence.
What the Court Actually Held
- The husband failed to establish the ingredients of cruelty and desertion under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Allegations that the wife branded him “black complexioned” or “fatty shaped” cannot by themselves be taken as sufficient ground for a divorce decree.
- Desertion was not proved: the evidence showed the husband’s family forcibly sent the wife away after her miscarriage, and the husband failed to prove animus deserendi.
- The appeal was dismissed without costs, upholding the Family Court’s judgment of 28 August 2024.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Body-shaming and complexion remarks are frequently pleaded in divorce cases; the ruling shows such allegations still need proof and will not alone decide the case.
- It reiterates that desertion requires proof of intention to desert, and that a spouse forced out of the home has not deserted.
- It applies Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh as an illustrative, evidence-based test for mental cruelty.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Spouses
- General allegations of insults and hostility must be backed by specific, reliable evidence to succeed as cruelty.
- Who left the matrimonial home, and why, is central to desertion; being sent away is not desertion.
For Counsel
- Lead specific instances with dates and corroboration; the Court rejected allegations lacking “cogent and clinching evidence”.
- In desertion cases, prove animus deserendi and genuine efforts at reconciliation, not just visits.
Key Takeaways
- Complexion or weight remarks alone are not enough for divorce.
- Cruelty allegations need cogent and clinching evidence.
- A wife sent away by the husband’s family has not deserted.
- Husband’s appeal dismissed; Family Court order upheld.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is calling a spouse ‘black’ or ‘fat’ a ground for divorce?
In this case the Chhattisgarh High Court held that allegations that the wife branded the husband “black complexioned” or “fatty shaped” could not by themselves be sufficient ground for divorce, particularly where they were not proved by cogent evidence.
Why was desertion not proved?
The wife’s mother testified that the husband’s family forcibly sent the wife with her after a miscarriage, and the husband made no real effort to bring her back, so he could not prove the intention to desert.
What happened to the wife’s stridhan claim?
The Family Court had allowed her Section 27 application for return of stridhan. The High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the Family Court’s judgment without separately discussing that point.
Conclusion
Akash Ghosh v. Pooja Seet, (2026) 09 CHH CK 2593 is a reminder that divorce on grounds of cruelty or desertion turns on evidence, not labels. Insulting remarks, even if made, did not by themselves justify a decree, and the record showed the wife had been sent away rather than having deserted.
Practical takeaway: A spouse seeking divorce must prove specific, serious conduct amounting to cruelty, or a clear intention to desert; isolated or unproved allegations will not carry the case.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com