The Madras High Court has granted divorce to a husband on the ground of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, holding that unsubstantiated allegations of a sexual nature made by the wife against her husband and father-in-law constituted cruelty. The Court allowed the husband’s appeals challenging the Family Court’s decision, which had previously dismissed his divorce petition and allowed the wife’s plea for restitution of conjugal rights.
The Division Bench comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice R. Sakthivel pronounced the judgment in CMA Nos. 1038 and 1039 of 2024, setting aside the orders passed by the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.
Background
The husband and wife were married on 16 September 2015 and had a male child born on 27 July 2016. Following marital discord, the husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court at Chengalpattu on 4 October 2017. This was later transferred and renumbered as H.M.O.P. No. 2237 of 2021. The wife subsequently filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 3 February 2021, registered as H.M.O.P. No. 702 of 2021.
Both petitions were heard by the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, which, by common orders dated 16 December 2023, dismissed the husband’s divorce petition and allowed the wife’s plea for restitution of conjugal rights. Aggrieved, the husband filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
Arguments by the Husband
The husband alleged that the wife refused to live with his parents, insisted on separate residence, and stayed with him for only 51 days in two years of marriage. He further claimed that she frequently left for her parental home without justification and made derogatory allegations against him and his family.
During the pendency of proceedings, the wife lodged a police complaint dated 27 October 2017 with the All Women Police Station, Mylapore, alleging sexual harassment by her father-in-law and accusing her husband of immoral conduct. This complaint, marked as Ex-R5, referred to both men as “perverts.” The wife later withdrew the complaint by submitting a letter dated 1 November 2017 (Ex-R8), stating that certain allegations had crept into the complaint “without her knowledge.”
The husband contended that these uncorroborated and defamatory accusations caused irreparable damage to his and his father’s reputation, resulting in severe mental trauma. He also relied on a WhatsApp screenshot (Ex-R4) allegedly showing the wife admitting fault, which he claimed further proved her insincerity.
Wife’s Contentions
The wife, through her counsel, maintained that her allegations were truthful and had been reported to the appropriate police stations. She claimed she had withdrawn the sexual harassment complaint only after her husband assured her of reconciliation, which he later failed to honour.
She denied that her complaint was false and argued that her willingness to resume marital life remained intact, primarily for the welfare of their child. Her counsel referred to earlier court proceedings and reiterated that the Family Court had rightly allowed her plea for restitution.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court examined the evidence on record, including the parties’ oral testimonies and documentary evidence. The Court found no credible material to support the husband’s allegation that the wife had lived with him for only 51 days. It observed that her visits to her parental home during pregnancy were customary and could not be considered cruelty.
However, the Court critically evaluated the sexual harassment complaint (Ex-R5) and noted that after its withdrawal (Ex-R8), no steps were taken by the wife to reopen or substantiate the allegations when her husband allegedly failed to fulfil his assurance of reunion.
In paragraph 20 of the judgment, the Court observed:
“As elaborated above, the unestablished sexual allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner and his father, amounts to cruelty and thus, the petitioner has made out a case under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of H.M. Act.”
The Bench noted that such defamatory allegations, unless proved, carry the potential for reputational harm and psychological distress, thus constituting mental cruelty. The Court also dismissed the relevance of a prior court observation (Ex-P11) as non-binding obiter dicta.
Decision
Concluding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that the petitioner had established mental cruelty, the Court allowed the appeals and passed a decree of divorce. It simultaneously dismissed the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
The Court clarified that the wife and the minor child would retain their right to claim maintenance from the petitioner under applicable laws, despite the grant of divorce. It noted:
“This judgment, granting the dissolution of marriage, will not in any way affect the respondent’s right to claim maintenance.”
No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
