The Madras High Court has confirmed the dissolution of a marriage on the grounds of cruelty, ruling that a woman’s habitual departure to her parental home without valid cause and her pressure on her husband to abandon his elderly parents amounted to mental cruelty.
A division bench comprising Justice P. T. Asha and Justice N. Mala rejected an appeal filed by the wife challenging a family court decree that had dissolved the union. In an order dated August 27, the bench determined that the woman had knowingly wed an only son responsible for his aging parents, yet persistently insisted on establishing a separate household away from them.
The judges observed that matrimony represents a mutual partnership that cannot function under the unilateral demands of one partner. The court stated that frequent, unjustified visits to a maternal residence generate persistent instability and fear in a spouse, who is left anticipating that the other partner could provoke a dispute and depart abruptly.
Attempts at Accommodation
According to the husband’s petition, his former spouse repeatedly left their matrimonial home to reside with her parents for extended intervals spanning several months.
Although he possessed his own property and remained the sole caregiver for his parents, the husband consented to rent an independent residence after she declined to remain in a joint family setting. He subsequently relocated a second time to establish a home situated nearer to her parents’ residence. Despite these concessions, the husband stated that her routine of abandoning the home continued unabated, prompting him to petition the family court for divorce.
Unsubstantiated Allegations and Non-Cooperation
The woman opposed the dissolution by arguing that mistreatment by her husband and his family, along with dowry demands, had compelled her to leave. She further claimed that her husband sought the separation to evade paying spousal maintenance, remarry, and pursue an extramarital relationship.
The High Court noted, however, that the woman failed to participate meaningfully in the family court proceedings. Although granted numerous chances to furnish proof, she neither produced evidence supporting her accusations nor submitted herself to cross-examination. Furthermore, the court observed that her own pleadings confirmed the couple had previously relocated twice to accommodate her aversion to living with her in-laws.
Concurring with the family court’s evaluation of the oral and documentary records, the High Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the decree of divorce.
