The Madras High Court has dismissed a husband’s appeal seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, holding that serious matrimonial allegations must be established through acceptable evidence. The Court also said that childlessness and the difficulties associated with fertility treatment cannot, by themselves, be treated as matrimonial fault.
A Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi delivered the judgment on September 30, 2026, in C.M.A.(MD) No.724 of 2022. The appeal challenged the Family Court, Theni’s refusal to dissolve the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Background
The parties married on June 18, 2007. The husband alleged that after an initially peaceful period, the wife subjected him to mental and physical cruelty. Among other allegations, he claimed that she frequently suspected him when he returned late from work, left the matrimonial home, refused matrimonial companionship and, during an alleged incident on June 4, 2016, abused and assaulted him.
The wife denied these allegations. She maintained that the husband had a drinking habit and that her objections to his late return were connected with his conduct. She also disputed the alleged assault and other incidents relied upon by the husband.
The couple had no child during the marriage. The wife had undergone treatment and surgery for a fibroid condition. The husband relied on the absence of a child as part of his case, while the wife said that she had undergone treatment in the hope of conceiving and preserving the marriage.
The High Court found that the husband had not satisfactorily established the serious allegations made against the wife. It noted that the Family Court had examined the evidence and found no sufficient corroboration for allegations such as calling the husband impotent or assaulting him. The High Court found no perversity or illegality in that assessment.
The Bench explained that while cruelty has to be assessed from the overall matrimonial relationship, unproved allegations cannot become proof merely because several allegations are considered together.
"The cumulative effect of the conduct is certainly relevant; however, the foundational facts constituting such conduct must themselves be established."
The Court also rejected the suggestion that ordinary disagreements or questions between spouses could automatically amount to cruelty. It held that the wife’s alleged suspicion about the husband’s late return, without additional circumstances showing oppressive or intolerable conduct, could not by itself meet the legal standard of matrimonial cruelty.
On childlessness, the Bench placed particular emphasis on the wife’s fertility treatment. It observed that she had undergone medical treatment in an attempt to conceive and continue the matrimonial relationship. The Court held that the absence of a child could not itself be converted into a matrimonial fault against her.
The Court further noted that prolonged separation, by itself, could not automatically establish cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia), particularly when the wife continued to express willingness to resume matrimonial life.
The Bench concluded that the husband had failed to prove a continuous course of conduct satisfying the legal test of matrimonial cruelty. It held that the Family Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and found no reason for appellate interference.
The High Court therefore dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal and confirmed the Family Court’s judgment dismissing the husband’s divorce petition.
There was no order as to costs.
