Madras High Court Grants Divorce on Grounds of Mental Cruelty Over False Allegations
Chennai, June 19: The Madras High Court has granted divorce to a husband on the ground of mental cruelty, holding that unsubstantiated allegations of a sexual nature made by the wife against him and his father amounted to reputational harm and psychological trauma.
A Division Bench comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice R. Sakthivel allowed the husband's appeals (CMA Nos. 1038 and 1039 of 2024), overturning the III Additional Principal Family Court’s order that had previously dismissed his divorce plea and allowed the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
Background
The couple, married on September 16, 2015, have a son born in July 2016. Following marital disputes, the husband filed for divorce in 2017, later transferred as HMOP No. 2237 of 2021. In response, the wife filed HMOP No. 702 of 2021 for restitution of conjugal rights.
The Family Court had sided with the wife, prompting the husband to file appeals before the High Court.
Key Allegations and Arguments
The husband alleged that his wife refused to live with his parents, spent very limited time with him post-marriage, and repeatedly made defamatory allegations, including a police complaint accusing him and his father of sexual misconduct.
The October 2017 complaint (Ex-R5) described them as “perverts,” but was later withdrawn (Ex-R8) with the wife claiming that some statements were included “without her knowledge.” The husband argued that these baseless allegations had tarnished their reputation and caused emotional distress.
The wife, however, claimed the complaint was truthful and withdrawn only in the hope of reconciliation—a promise she said her husband failed to keep. She maintained her willingness to resume marital life, especially for the child’s sake.
Court’s Observations
While the Court dismissed the husband’s claim that the wife lived with him only for 51 days due to lack of proof, it took serious note of the sexual allegations and their withdrawal without substantiation.
In paragraph 20 of the judgment, the Bench held:
> “The unestablished sexual allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner and his father amount to cruelty, and thus, the petitioner has made out a case under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
The Court emphasized that such defamatory accusations, when left unproven, could not be taken lightly, especially when they affect one’s dignity and mental peace.
Verdict
Declaring that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, the Court granted the husband a divorce and dismissed the wife’s plea for restitution. It clarified, however, that the wife and minor child still retain the right to claim maintenance.
No costs were awarded, and all connected petitions were closed.
A Note of Closure
In a deeply personal matter where allegations shook the foundation of trust between two individuals, the Court’s verdict seeks to bring legal closure—if not emotional peace. It underscores that while the law provides a platform to voice grievances, it must not be used as a tool for vengeance when lives and reputations are at stake.
