Now Reading: Chhattisgarh HC says wife calling husband ‘black complexioned’ not divorce ground
-
01
Chhattisgarh HC says wife calling husband ‘black complexioned’ not divorce ground
Chhattisgarh HC says wife calling husband ‘black complexioned’ not divorce ground
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a wife calling her husband "black complexioned" or "fatty shaped" is not sufficient grounds for divorce. A division bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and…
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a wife calling her husband "black complexioned" or "fatty shaped" is not sufficient grounds for divorce. A division bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput dismissed the husband's appeal, noting he failed to prove cruelty or desertion with evidence. The court observed that mere allegations without substantiation cannot justify dissolving a marriage.
In a separate ruling, a different division bench granted divorce to a wife on grounds of mental cruelty. The court held that the husband's abusive WhatsApp messages to his wife and her sisters constituted mental cruelty. The bench noted that Family Courts are not bound by strict evidence rules and can consider WhatsApp chats even if they do not fully comply with the Evidence Act, especially when the husband did not deny the messages.
Both orders were passed under the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife in the second case was granted liberty to seek permanent alimony separately.
Indian Opinion Analysis
LiveLaw covered both rulings neutrally, leading each with the court's legal reasoning. New Indian Express reported only the wife's divorce victory, framing it around cruelty and justice for women. The contrast highlights a court drawing a line: casual insults do not meet the cruelty threshold, but sustained abusive behaviour backed by evidence does. The takeaway is the evidentiary standard. Family Courts have discretion under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, but litigants still need proof. The Supreme Court's Samar Ghosh guidelines remain the benchmark for cruelty.
Coverage: 3 sources, 2 neutral, 1 sensationalist
Sources (3): livelaw.in (neutral report), newindianexpress.com (sensationalist), livelaw.in (2) (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 3 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry.
Updated: this story now draws on 3 sources.
