In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court held that a wife's decision to focus on her academic and professional aspirations instead of relocating abroad with her husband does not amount to cruelty. However, considering the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and prolonged separation, the Court dissolved the marital bond.
The Division Bench comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice R. Sakthivel was hearing an appeal filed by the husband challenging the Family Court’s decision, which had earlier dismissed his petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The couple, both engineering graduates, had married on July 2, 2014, as per Hindu rites in Chennai and initially lived together in Hyderabad, where the husband was employed.
Read Also:-Madras High Court Stays Tamil Nadu Law Taking Away Governor’s Role in Appointing Vice Chancellors
According to the husband, the wife displayed scornful and indifferent behaviour shortly after marriage. He alleged that she was sarcastic, quarrelsome, abusive, and uninterested in the relationship. He also stated that she refused to live with his parents and moved to a paying guest accommodation when he had to leave for training in the USA in 2015. Upon his return, she allegedly refused to reunite with him and later moved to the United States for higher studies without informing him.
He filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claiming mental cruelty caused by her conduct, including her refusal to join him in Canada where he had secured employment.
The wife, in her defence, denied all allegations of cruelty and contended that she treated her husband with love and care. She claimed that she had supported him during his illness, celebrated festivals with him, and participated in family events. She also stated that it was the interference of the husband’s parents that led to disputes. She admitted to pursuing higher education in the USA but asserted that she had informed her in-laws and communicated the decision to her husband via Skype.
She further submitted that she was still willing to resume their marital life if provided with a violence-free and respectful environment. She emphasised that she never removed her mangalsutra and continued to fulfil her duties as a wife.
The Family Court had earlier dismissed the divorce petition on the ground that the allegations of cruelty were not substantiated. It observed that minor scuffles and differences were part of normal marital wear and tear and did not amount to legal cruelty.
On appeal, the High Court analysed the evidence, including email communications between the parties. The bench observed that both spouses were equally qualified and career-oriented individuals who were not ready to compromise on their respective goals. The Court stated:
“Since both are equally qualified and educated and pursuing their careers as they desire, this Court cannot find fault with act of the respondent in prioritizing her academics or career. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the ground of cruelty for dissolution of marriage has not been made out in this case.”
However, the Court acknowledged that the couple had been living apart for almost nine years and that all efforts at conciliation had failed. It noted that there was no possibility of reconciliation and that both parties had remained steadfast in their respective stands.
It is now evident that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, and there is no hope for revival. Hence, it would be appropriate to dissolve the marriage.
Accordingly, while rejecting cruelty as a ground for divorce, the High Court allowed the appeal and dissolved the marriage, citing irretrievable breakdown. The bench did not impose any cost on either party.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Case Number: CMA No. 756 of 2021
Date of Judgment: April 29, 2025
Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Sheila Jayaprakash
Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Geetha Ramaseshan
