Citation : 2025 Local Law (CG) 864 : 2025:CGHC:55257-DB
The Chhattisgarh High Court on Thursday affirmed a family-court decree dissolving a long-standing marriage after finding that the couple had been living separately for years and that the evidence supported the husband’s claim of adultery. In a reserved judgment delivered on 13 November 2025, a division bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad dismissed the wife’s appeal and upheld the Family Court, Dhamtari’s decree in favour of the husband, Bashant Sinha.
The case traces back to a marriage solemnised on 25 April 1999 and the birth of two sons in 2000 and 2004. According to the record, the husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that his wife, Poonam Sinha, willingly left the matrimonial home in April 2015 and thereafter lived with another man, identified in the record as Vijay Sahu. The husband reported his wife missing in April 2015; she later told police she had left the marriage and was living with Mr. Sahu. Police records produced before the court and witness testimony supported the husband’s case that the wife had been living separately since 2015.
The wife challenged the Family Court’s original decision of 23 July 2019, which granted the husband a divorce decree. On appeal, the High Court initially remanded the matter in October 2022 for further consideration, specifically ordering the Family Court to give the wife sufficient opportunity to lead evidence about her claimed hearing disability. The remand sought to ensure the wife’s disability had not prevented her from fully participating in earlier proceedings. After additional proceedings, however, the Family Court again granted the husband a decree of divorce on 17 April 2023 a decision the High Court has now sustained.
In their judgment, the division bench carefully reviewed the evidence placed before the trial court and noted that after remand the wife did not call corroborative witnesses such as her landlord or others who might have supported her version of events. The judges cited earlier case law, including the Supreme Court’s guidance in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa and related precedents, on the relevance of separation and conduct when courts assess whether a marriage has irretrievably broken down. The bench found that the parties had been living apart for an extended period and that the trial court’s evaluation of oral and documentary evidence was not vitiated by procedural unfairness. On that basis, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Beyond the legal finding on adultery, the judgment highlights two recurring themes in family litigation: the evidentiary burden on parties who challenge allegations of adultery and the court’s duty to accommodate litigants with disabilities. The High Court’s earlier remand and express direction to permit the appellant to demonstrate the effect of her hearing impairment show judicial sensitivity to access concerns; at the same time, the Court’s final view rested on the substantive absence of corroborative evidence from the appellant after that opportunity was afforded.
For the family, the decision closes a chapter that began more than a decade ago. For legal practitioners, the case will be of interest for its treatment of procedural fairness, the impact of prolonged separation on the character of a marriage, and the interplay of documentary police records with testimony in matrimonial proceedings.
Case Details : FA(MAT) No. 151 of 2023, Smt. Poonam Sinha vs Bashant Sinha
Counsels : For Appellant : Ms. Meera Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondent : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hrishabh Deo Shukla, Advocate.