The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld a decree of divorce granted to a retired Army personnel, finding that repeated allegations of extramarital relationships, complaints made to his superior officers, and the parties' prolonged separation amounted to mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Justice P. Vadamalai dismissed a second appeal filed by the wife and confirmed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, both of which had dissolved the marriage.
Case Background
According to the husband, the marriage was solemnized in August 1977 and the couple had two children. He alleged that from the early years of the marriage, his wife repeatedly accused him of maintaining relationships with other women and publicly humiliated him. He further claimed that she sent complaints to his superior officers while he was serving in the Army.
The husband also relied on various criminal and civil disputes between the parties and alleged that the wife had converted to Christianity, causing him mental agony. Based on these allegations, he sought divorce on grounds including cruelty.
The wife opposed the petition, contending that any complaints she made were prompted by the husband's conduct. She alleged that he had relationships with other women and referred to past criminal proceedings initiated against him. She also denied having converted to Christianity.
The High Court noted that during her testimony, the wife admitted that she had sent complaints to the husband's Army superiors regarding his alleged relationships with other women. The Court treated this admission as significant evidence.
Referring to Supreme Court precedent, Justice Vadamalai observed that complaints made by one spouse to the employer or superior authorities of the other spouse can seriously affect reputation and career prospects and may amount to mental cruelty.
The Court observed:
“When the reputation of the spouse is sullied amongst his colleagues, his superiors and the society at large, it would be difficult to expect condonation of such conduct by the affected party.”
The judge rejected the wife's argument that the alleged acts had been condoned because the parties lived together for some period after the complaints were made. According to the Court, the disputes and accusations continued even after the husband's retirement, leading to further litigation and criminal proceedings.
The Court also took note of the wife's admission that she had removed her "thali" (mangalsutra) and was not wearing gold ornaments. Relying on earlier decisions of the High Court, the judge observed that removal of the thali carries social and marital significance in Hindu marriages and can, in certain circumstances, amount to mental cruelty.
While discussing the husband's allegation regarding conversion of religion, the Court considered the evidence placed on record and concluded that the allegation could not be completely brushed aside.
The wife had argued that "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" is not a statutory ground for divorce and that only the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage on that basis by exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The High Court agreed that irretrievable breakdown alone is not a ground available to subordinate courts. However, it clarified that a prolonged period of separation may still be relevant while examining whether mental cruelty has been established.
The Court noted that the spouses had been living separately since the mid-1990s and had remained apart for more than 30 years. It also observed that the wife had not initiated any proceedings seeking restitution of conjugal rights or reunion.
Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the Court held that exceptionally long separation and complete absence of cohabitation can contribute to a finding of mental cruelty.
Concluding that the husband had successfully proved cruelty, Justice Vadamalai held that there was no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
The High Court dismissed the wife's appeal and confirmed the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court granting divorce to the husband.
No costs were awarded.
Case Details:
Case Title: V vs. C
Case Number: C.M.S.A.(MD) No. 44 of 2021
Judge: Justice P. Vadamalai
Decision Date: 01 June 2026
