Madras High Court
Umesh Nathan vs R.Meenakshi on 28 July, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 18.06.2026 Pronounced on : 28.07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD).No.3598 of 2026
Umesh Nathan ... Petitioner / Appellant
Vs.
R.Meenakshi ... Respondent / Respondent
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in H.M.O.P. No.
9 of 2015 on the file of the learned Family Court, Trichy by allowing this
appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkatesan,
M/s.Right Law Associates
For Respondent : Mr.G.S.Asok Adhithyan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.)
The appellant/husband has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal challenging the fair and decretal order dated 15.09.2020 passed in
1/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
H.M.O.P. No.9 of 2015 on the file of the learned Family Court, Tiruchirappalli.
2. Facts of the Case:
2.1. The petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife were married on
24.06.2010 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner is an
MBA graduate, and the respondent is a MCA graduate. According to the
petitioner, prior to the marriage, the respondent had sustained serious injuries in
a road accident, resulting in permanent physical disability. It is alleged that this
material fact was deliberately suppressed by the respondent and her family
before the marriage. The petitioner would further contend that, owing to the
injuries sustained in the accident, the respondent suffered from depression and
was undergoing psychiatric treatment, which was not disclosed prior to the
marriage. According to the petitioner, the suppression of these material facts led
to serious matrimonial discord between the parties.
2.2. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent failed to
discharge her household responsibilities, frequently picked up quarrels, and
repeatedly threatened to commit suicide, thereby causing him severe mental
agony amounting to mental cruelty. Despite the intervention of the petitioner’s
parents and other relatives, there was no improvement in her conduct.
According to the petitioner, the parties were unable to lead a peaceful
2/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
matrimonial life.
2.3. The petitioner would further state that a complaint was lodged before
the Inspector of Police, Kolathur Police Station, Chennai, on 25.08.2013, upon
which the police advised both parties to amicably resolve their matrimonial
disputes. However, according to the petitioner, on 26.08.2013, the respondent
voluntarily left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents.
Thereafter, a legal notice dated 30.08.2013 was issued by the petitioner,
followed by the filing of H.M.O.P.No.4033 of 2013 before the III Additional
Family Court, Chennai, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of
cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Subsequently, on the application of the respondent, the said petition was
transferred to the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli, where it was renumbered as
H.M.O.P.No.9 of 2015.
2.4. The respondent/wife filed a detailed counter statement denying all
the allegations made in the divorce petition. She specifically denied having
suppressed any material fact relating to her health before the marriage.
According to her, the petitioner was fully aware of the injuries sustained by her
prior to the marriage, and only thereafter the marriage was solemnised and
consummated.
3/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
2.5. The respondent further contended that it was not she, but the
petitioner’s parents, who were responsible for causing matrimonial discord by
constantly interfering in their marital life. She alleged that she tolerated the
harassment only for the welfare of their child. She also averred that the
petitioner himself was suffering from liver and heart-related ailments and that
she had undergone an abortion of the second pregnancy owing to medical
complications. According to the respondent, she was subjected to both mental
and physical cruelty by the petitioner and his parents.
2.6. The respondent further stated that on 25.08.2013, she was physically
assaulted by the petitioner, compelling her to contact the police by calling the
emergency number. The police arrived at the matrimonial home, conducted an
enquiry and advised both parties to amicably resolve their disputes. However,
according to the respondent, on the following day, i.e., 26.08.2013, she was
forcibly driven out of the matrimonial home. She contended that without
making any sincere effort to restitute conjugal relationship, the petitioner
hastily filed the divorce petition by making false and baseless allegations
against her.
4/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
2.7. The respondent categorically asserted that she was always willing
and ready to resume cohabitation with the petitioner and continue the
matrimonial relationship. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the divorce
petition.
2.8. During the course of trial, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1
and marked Exs. P1 to P6. On the side of the respondent,The respondent
examined herself as R.W.1, and no documentary evidence was adduced.
3. Upon consideration of the pleadings, oral evidence and documentary
evidence available on record, the learned Trial Judge framed the necessary
issues and, by judgment and decree dated 15.09.2020, dismissed the divorce
petition holding that the petitioner had failed to establish the ground of cruelty
under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Aggrieved by the
said judgment and decree, the petitioner/husband has preferred the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court.
4. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
4.1.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband would
submit that the respondent had suppressed a material fact prior to the marriage,
namely, that she had sustained grievous injuries in a road accident, resulting in
5/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020permanent physical disability. According to the learned counsel, the said
disability, coupled with the respondent’s alleged depression for which she was
undergoing treatment, constituted suppression of material facts that ought to
have been disclosed before the marriage. The suppression of these facts,
according to the appellant, adversely affected the matrimonial relationship and
itself amounted to mental cruelty. It is contended that the learned Trial Judge
failed to properly appreciate this aspect and erroneously dismissed the divorce
petition.
4.2. The learned counsel would further contend that the respondent’s
conduct throughout the matrimonial life caused severe mental agony to the
appellant. According to him, the respondent frequently picked up quarrels,
failed to discharge her matrimonial obligations, repeatedly threatened to
commit suicide, and created an atmosphere of constant fear and anxiety in the
matrimonial home. Such conduct, it is submitted, clearly constituted mental
cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4.3. It is further submitted that complaints had been lodged before the
police, which itself demonstrates the matrimonial discord between the parties.
According to the learned counsel, the initiation of complaint to police and the
continuous disputes arising therefrom caused serious mental agony not only to
6/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
the appellant but also to his family members. The learned Trial Judge, however,
failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of these circumstances in proper
perspective.
4.4. The learned counsel would also submit that the repeated threats
allegedly made by the respondent to commit suicide have not been properly
considered by the Trial Court. Such conduct, viewed cumulatively, constituted
grave mental cruelty and rendered it impossible for the appellant to continue
the matrimonial relationship.
4.5. The learned counsel further contended that the learned Trial Judge
failed to distinguish between ordinary spousal tension in matrimonial life and
acts amounting to legal cruelty. According to him, the evidence adduced by the
appellant established continuous mental cruelty, but the Trial Court failed to
analyse the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective.
4.6. Lastly, it was submitted that the parties have been living separately
since 26.08.2013 and that the marriage has irretrievably been broken down.
According to the learned counsel, the matrimonial bond has become a mere
legal fiction or “dead wood,” serving no useful purpose. Though irretrievable
breakdown is not, by itself, a statutory ground for divorce, the prolonged
7/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
separation is a relevant circumstance while assessing the existence of mental
cruelty. On these grounds, the learned counsel prayed that the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court be set aside and the decree of divorce be granted.
5. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:
5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife
submitted that the allegation of suppression of material facts is wholly
unfounded. According to the respondent, the appellant was fully aware, even
prior to the marriage, of the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The
marriage was solemnised only after such disclosure, and the parties thereafter
consummated the marriage and were blessed with a child. The respondent also
became pregnant again and suffered abortion due to medical reasons. These
admitted facts, according to the learned counsel, clearly establish that the
alleged disability did not constitute any impediment to normal matrimonial life.
5.2. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent never
subjected the appellant to either physical or mental cruelty. On the contrary, it
was the respondent who suffered both physical and mental cruelty at the hands
of the appellant and his family members. The allegations levelled against the
respondent are false, exaggerated and intended solely to secure a decree of
divorce. It was further submitted that, despite the alleged acts of cruelty, the
8/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020respondent consistently expressed her willingness to continue the matrimonial
relationship and, in her counter statement, made a bona fide offer to resume
cohabitation with the appellant. This conduct, according to the learned counsel,
completely belies the appellant’s allegation that the respondent intended to
disrupt the matrimonial relationship.
5.3. The learned counsel also pointed out that the proceedings initiated
by the respondent were for maintenance. Even in those proceedings, the
appellant has failed to comply with the orders passed by the competent court by
paying the maintenance amount. It was submitted that the appellant is
employed as a Regional Manager in a private company and is earning more
than Rs.1,50,000 per month. Despite possessing sufficient financial means, he
has neglected to maintain the respondent and the minor child, thereby forcing
them to live without adequate financial support. On the above submissions, the
learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal and for confirmation of the
well-considered judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by
the learned counsel on either side, perused the materials available on record,
and examined the precedents relied upon by them.
9/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
7. Points for consideration:
Upon consideration of the rival submissions and on a careful perusal of
the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record, the
following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the appellant/husband has established that the
respondent/wife subjected him to mental cruelty within the meaning of Section
13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
8.Discussions:
8.1. The respondent/husband is an MBA graduate. At the time of the
marriage, the respondent/wife had completed the MCA course and was waiting
to submit her project. Thus, both parties are highly educated and possess
postgraduate qualifications.
8.2. The marriage between the parties was an arranged marriage
solemnized on 24.06.2010. The marriage was duly consummated. during the
wedlock, a male child was born on 26.07.2011. The records further disclose
that the wife conceived a second time; however, the pregnancy was
subsequently terminated due to medical reasons.
10/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
8.3. The principal allegation advanced by the husband is that the wife
had suppressed the fact that she had sustained a hip fracture in a motor vehicle
accident prior to the marriage and that she was suffering from mental
depression. More significantly, during his evidence, the husband candidly
admitted that the principal reason for filing the petition for divorce was the
wife’s hip fracture and the alleged Partial disability. The relevant portion of his
evidence reads as follows:
“ vdf;Fk; vd; kidtpf;Fk; ,ilNa Vw;gl;l gpur;rpidf;F
vd; kidtp fhypy; cs;s CdKk; xU fhuzk;. jpUkzk;
Kbe;jTlNdNa vd; kidtp fhypy; cs;s gpur;rpid
vq;fSf;F njupe;Jtpl;lJ. me;j fhuzj;jpw;fhf jpUkzj;ij
uj;J nra;a ehd; cldbahf kD Nghltpy;iy. vd;
kidtpapd; fhypy; cs;s Cdk; rupnra;aNt KbahJ vd;Wk;
mij vd;dplk; kiwj;J jpUkzk; elj;jptpl;lhu;fs; vd;W
vdJ tof;fwpQu; mwptpg;G k.rh.M.5y; nrhy;ypapUf;fpNwd;. vd;
kidtpapd; fhypy; Vw;gl;l Cdk; md;whl eltbf;iffspy;
ve;jtpj ghjpg;igAk; Vw;gLj;jhJ vd;Wk; jpUkzk; Md
rkak; ehd; mij ngupJ gLj;jtpy;iy vd;Wk; jw;NghJ ,e;j
tof;fpw;fhf me;j Cdj;ij kpidg;gLj;jp nrhy;fpNwd; vd;W
nrhd;dhy; rupay;y.
8.4.The stand taken by the husband that the wife was unfit for
matrimonial life merely because she had sustained a hip fracture prior to the
marriage reflects an unfortunate and insensitive attitude and hard heartedness
towards persons who have some health issues and the insistence of the husband
on seeking dissolution of marriage solely on account of the wife’s physical
disability also shows lack of empathy and compassion towards a spouse who
11/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020became the victim of an unfortunate accident. Such an approach is inconsistent
with the humane values of matrimonial relationship. Such a contention is not
only legally unsustainable but also contrary to the constitutional values of
dignity, equality and inclusiveness. A person who has suffered accidental
injuries cannot, by that reason alone, be branded as unfit for married life. To
hold otherwise would amount to endorsing a discriminatory and inhuman
approach towards persons who have health issues which this Court cannot
countenance. It reflects a complete lack of empathy and humanity towards a
spouse who had suffered accidental injuries before marriage. Such an attitude is
unbecoming of human being and cannot receive judicial approval. .
Physical disability or the consequences of an accidental injury do not render a
person incapable of leading a happy and fulfilling matrimonial life. Across
society, countless persons with disabilities discharge their marital and family
responsibilities with dignity and mutual affection. Humanity demands that a
spouse extends compassion, support and adjustment to a partner who has
suffered a physical disability, rather than treating such disability with contempt.
8.5. Life is not governed by statistics or mathematical certainty. Every
individual is susceptible to unforeseen misfortunes and accidents. Matrimonial
life necessarily demands mutual tolerance, compassion, adjustment and support,
particularly when one spouse is confronted with unforeseen adversities. If
12/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
accidental injuries sustained by a spouse either before or after marriage are
accepted as sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage, the very institution
of marriage and the principles underlying matrimonial jurisprudence would
stand seriously undermined. Disability can not be seen as a crime or sin and
cannot, by itself, diminish the dignity or worth of an individual. The true
disability in this case is the inability of the husband to acknowledge the positive
side of the wife. To ostracize or discriminate a person merely on account of
disability is contrary to the constitutional values of equality, dignity, and non-
discrimination. It is for this reason that nations across the world have enacted
legislative and policy measures to safeguard the rights of persons with
disabilities and to ensure they also participate in the mainstream of society. The
United Nations has also adopted various international instruments recognizing
and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. India has, in furtherance
of its constitutional obligations and international commitments, enacted
comprehensive legislation to secure and protect the rights, dignity, and equal
opportunities to persons with disabilities.
8.6. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not contemplate that
suppression of a past accidental injury or physical disability constitutes a
ground affecting the validity of a marriage. The statute specifically mentions
about the grounds on which dissolution of marriage can sought particularly
13/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
about the unsoundness of mind etc. The Legislature has nowhere provided that
non-disclosure of an accidental injury or a physical disability amounts to
suppression warranting dissolution of marriage.
8.7.To recognize disability, by itself, as a ground for divorce in the facts
of the present case would amount to legitimizing discrimination against persons
with disabilities and would undermine the very object sought to be achieved by
the constitutional guarantees and the statutory protections afforded to them.
Such an approach deserves to be deprecated unequivocally. Viewed in the
aforesaid legal and constitutional perspective, the conduct of the petitioner-
husband in seeking dissolution of the marriage solely on the ground that the
respondent-wife suffered a disability due to an accident is wholly unjustified.
Such a plea is not only legally unsustainable but also deeply inconsistent with
the constitutional ethos of compassion, equality, and respect for human dignity.
It causes profound concern to the conscience of this Court.
8.8.The allegation that the wife’s pre-marital accidental injury amounted
to suppression of a material fact is wholly misconceived. The evidence of the
wife and the circumstances further establish that the injuries sustained by her
had, in fact, been disclosed to the husband and his family members prior to the
marriage. The evidence on record establishes that the wife underwent proper
14/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
medical treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident and, according to
her, the fact of such injuries had been disclosed to the husband and his family
members. The subsequent conduct of the parties also demonstrates that the wife
continued to discharge her matrimonial obligations and led a normal marital life
without any serious impediment. The marriage was consummated, they lived
together as husband and wife, and were blessed with a child in the year 2011.
The wife conceived second time. The evidence on record clearly establishes
that the parties continued their matrimonial life after the marriage and were
blessed with a child. There is absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that the
disability suffered by the respondent-wife has, in any way, affected the marital
relationship or rendered her incapable of performing her matrimonial
obligations. In the absence of any such evidence, the alleged disability suffered
by the respondent-wife cannot, by any stretch of legal reasoning, constitute a
valid ground for dissolution of marriage. Therefore, the contention of the
husband that the alleged physical deformity rendered her unfit for matrimonial
life is wholly devoid of legal and factual foundation. In such circumstances, his
plea that the wife was incapable of leading a normal matrimonial life because of
the earlier hip fracture is wholly devoid of merit.
15/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
8.9.The materials on record further indicate that, owing to the nature of
the husband’s employment, he was frequently away from the matrimonial home.
During such periods, the wife was constrained to reside with her parents-in-law
and was subjected to persistent harassment at the hands of her mother-in-law
and father-in-law, thereby making her matrimonial life difficult and unpleasant.
Hence,the conduct of the husband, viewed in its entirety, lends considerable
support to the wife’s consistent plea that she was subjected to ill-treatment and
discrimination by the husband and his family members because of the physical
infirmity resulting from the accident.
8.10.The further allegation that the wife was suffering from mental
depression is equally unsupported by any acceptable evidence. There is no iota
of medical or independent evidence on record to substantiate such a serious
allegation. On the contrary, the conduct of the parties shows that they happily
lived together after marriage and were blessed with a child within a year, and
continued their matrimonial relationship thereafter. The evidence does not
indicate any conduct attributable to mental illness or depression that rendered
the continuation of marital life impossible. The inevitable conclusion, therefore,
is that the allegation of mental depression has been invented solely to create a
ground for dissolution of marriage.
16/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
8.11.Likewise, the allegation that the wife frequently attempted to
commit suicide also remains a mere statement without proof. Except for the
interested testimony of the husband, no independent evidence has been
produced to establish any suicide attempt or any conduct making out mental
cruelty.
8.12.It is well settled that a spouse seeking dissolution of marriage on the
ground of mental cruelty must specifically plead the material facts constituting
cruelty and prove those facts by reliable evidence.
9. The husband, however, has neither pleaded nor proved any specific
acts of cruelty committed by the wife during the said period. On the contrary, he
sought to attribute the matrimonial discord to the injuries sustained by the wife
prior to the marriage and made unfounded allegation that she was suffering
from mental depression. As already discussed, those allegations remain wholly
unsubstantiated. Mere allegations, however serious, cannot take the place of
proof. It is well settled principle that the matrimonial relief on mental cruelty
must depend upon the cumulative effect of the conduct and the surrounding
circumstances of married life of each case.
17/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
9.1. The Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of Nirmal Singh Panesar v.
Paramjit Kaur Panesar, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 790 has held as follows:
It is well-accepted proposition that “cruelty” is a course or
conduct of one party which adversely affects the other. The
“cruelty” may be mental or physical, intentional, or
unintentional…….
11. The crux of the various decisions of this Court on the
interpretation of the word “cruelty” is that it has to be construed
and interpreted considering the type of life the parties are
accustomed to; or their economic and social conditions and their
culture and human values to which they attach importance. Each
case has to be decided on its own merits.
9.2. The Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel
Kaur, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 has held as follows:
Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may
be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as
to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to
give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. . First,
the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second
the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it
caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or
injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of
inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the
conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there18/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad
enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or
injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or
considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the
conduct itself is proved or admitted.
9.3. The Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj
Pandit, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 778 has held as follows:
…it must be proved that one partner in the marriage however
mindless of the consequences has behaved in a way which the other
spouse could not in the circumstances be called upon to endure,
and that misconduct has caused injury to health or a reasonable
apprehension of such injury. There are two sides to be considered
in case of cruelty. From the appellant’s side, ought this appellant to
be called on to endure the conduct? From the respondent’s side,
was this conduct excusable? The court has then to decide whether
the sum total of the reprehensible conduct was cruel. That depends
on whether the cumulative conduct was sufficiently serious to say
that from a reasonable person’s point of view after a consideration
of any excuse which the respondent might have in the
circumstances, the conduct is such that the petitioner ought not be
called upon to endure.
9.4. The Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya
Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 98 has held as follows:
On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court
and other courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that19/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of
“mental cruelty” within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty
can be covered. No court in our considered view should even
attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty.
99.Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is
equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound,
therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one
definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not
amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from
person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of
sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial
position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human
values and their value system.
100…. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed
parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters.
The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be
to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking
aforementioned factors in consideration.
101.No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet
we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human
behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of
“mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding
paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties,
acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible
for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad
parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of
the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that
the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such
conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty,
frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference
and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life
for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
20/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish,
disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of
other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment
calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the
spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse
actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse.
The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or
apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference
or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness
causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can
also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness,
possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and
emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the
ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the
married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be
adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few
isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty.
The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where
the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the
acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it
extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may
amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation
without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of
his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion
without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her
husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for
considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or
valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage
not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation,
it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond
21/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal
tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not
serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant
regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like
situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
9.5. Applying the above principles governing mental cruelty laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds no material whatsoever to infer
that the wife treated the husband with such cruelty as would entitle him to a
decree of divorce. Further more, in this case, the husband did not make any
pleading about her conduct that could have caused him either physical cruelty
or mental cruelty and there is total lacking of oral or documentary evidentiary
proof . This court also does not find any material circumstances either to
presume physical cruelty or mental cruelty to grant divorce under Section 13(1)
(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the available records.
9.6. Even from the documentary evidence on record, it is evident that the
first legal notice was issued by the husband on 21.01.2013. Significantly,
notwithstanding the issuance of the said notice, the wife resumed and continued
her matrimonial life in the matrimonial home along with the husband and his
parents. Therefore, once the parties resumed cohabitation and matrimonial life
after the issuance of the notice dated 21.01.2013, all the alleged incidents that
had occurred prior thereto stood condoned in the eye of matrimonial law. The
doctrine of condonation is well settled. As per the reiterated the principle of
22/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
The Hon’ble supreme court in Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi reported in [(2010) 2
SCC 289] and Dastane v. Dastane reported in (AIR 1975 SC 1534)
Condonation implies forgiveness of a matrimonial offence, reinstating the
offending spouse to the original marital status. When there is satisfactory
evidence of reinstatement and normal conjugal relations resumes, the
condonation is held to be proved as per the various precedents and thereafter
the earlier acts cannot ordinarily be relied upon as independent grounds for
dissolution of marriage unless there is a subsequent repetition by fresh acts of
cruelty.
9.7. In the present case, the only subsequent incident relied upon by the
parties pertains to 25.08.2013. The parties have also relied upon an incident
dated 25.08.2013, regarding which two rival versions have been projected.
According to the wife, she contacted the police by calling the emergency
number complaining harassment meted out to her by the husband and his
family members. According to the husband, he himself lodged the complaint
against the wife. Except for the rival allegations concerning that incident and
the wife’s assertion that she was subjected to harassment by her parents-in-law,
there are no pleadings or evidence disclosing any subsequent acts of cruelty
committed by the wife. No material has been placed before this Court to
establish that, after the alleged condonation, the wife committed any conduct
23/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
amounting to mental cruelty. Irrespective of these rival versions, this Court is of
the view that the incident appears to be the outcome of ordinary squabble in
matrimonial life, aggravated by interference from family members, Which does
not amount to legal cruelty.
9.8.On the contrary, the evidence probabilises the wife’s consistent stand
that she discharged her matrimonial obligations as a dutiful spouse and
continued to lead the matrimonial life despite the hip injury sustained in the
earlier accident. There is nothing on record to disbelieve or discard her
evidence. Despite the allegation affecting her personal dignity, the wife neither
initiated any offending proceedings nor persisted with those allegations. She
made genuine and sincere desire to restore the matrimonial relationship. In the
said circumstances, the plea of the husband that the marriage become deadwood
and he is entitled to get decree for divorce on the ground of the break down of
the marriage irretrievably is misconceived. At this juncture, it is apposite to
reiterate the settled legal position that the doctrine of “irretrievable breakdown
of marriage” is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The
power to dissolve a marriage on this ground is vested exclusively with the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and that too in exceptional
circumstances and the issue with regard to irretrievable breakdown of marriage
24/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
and passing of decree of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution has been
adumbrated by the Hon’ble Constitution Bench of supreme court in the case of
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan reported in (2023) 14 SCC 231 and the
same has been followed and reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar, reported in
(2025) 3 SCC 790 in which divorce was declined on the ground of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage and relevant paragraphs are as follows:
18. ……In view of the aforestated decision [Shilpa Sailesh v.
Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 14 SCC 231] of the Constitution
Bench, there remains no shadow of doubt that this Court can
depart from the procedure as well as the substantive laws, and
exercise its discretion under Article 142 for dissolving the
marriage between the parties by balancing out the equities
between the conflicting claims of the parties, however, such
discretion should be exercised with great care and caution. It has
also laid down that this discretionary power could be exercised
for dissolving the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable
breakdown to do “complete justice”, though one of the spouses
opposes the prayer for dissolution of marriage.
9.9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that marriage is
not a relationship that can be dissolved at the instance of either spouse merely
because incompatibility has arisen out of petty issues in matrimonial life. Minor
misunderstandings, differences of opinion, and the spousal bickering in married
25/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
life do not, by themselves, constitute legal cruelty warranting dissolution of
marriage. The allegation made by the husband looking from any angle is in the
nature of usual trivial issues occurring in marital life. In this aspect , it is
relevant to extract the following paragraph of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin
Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC
759 where it is observed as follows:
“Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to
the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations,
quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life,
may also not amount to cruelty. The foundation of a sound marriage
is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to
each other’s fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in
every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane
matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion
to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. The Court
must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of
view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case,
always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the
parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper
sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very
institution of the marriage”9.10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further emphasized that children
are not chattels or property to be treated as incidental casualties of matrimonial
26/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020disputes. They are the most affected victims of a broken marriage. Therefore,
while considering a petition for divorce, the Court is required to bear in mind
not only the rights of the spouses but also the welfare and future of the child.
Unless there is cogent and convincing evidence establishing grave and
sustained mental cruelty or any other statutory ground for divorce, the Court
cannot dissolve a marriage merely because one of the spouses seeks such
dissolution.
9.11.This Court is also bound to consider the welfare of the child and
may decline to grant a decree of divorce where the disputes between the
spouses are neither serious nor grave. In the present case, this Court finds that
the disputes between the spouses are not of such an irreconcilable nature but
appear to have arisen out of intolerance on the part of husband. The parties
have also been blessed with a beautiful child from the wedlock, whose welfare
remains a paramount consideration. In this context, it is appropriate to extract
the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Achin
Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC
759 has reads as follows:
“In matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children.
The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do
not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to
an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce27/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the
children is concerned.”Therefore, in the interest of institution of marriage, and for the welfare of child
this court is declined to grant divorce.
9.12.This Court in C.M.A.(MD).No.291 of 2024 one of us
(K.K.Ramakrishnan.J,) observed as follows:
19.“The marriage is a heavenly union of two souls, two
families and sometimes two diverse cultures. There would be
some couple, meeting each other before their marriage and sort
out all their major issues that loomed large and would make the
marriage proposal work. Then they enter into a blissful marriage.
They are also blessed with a child. Now their marriage is on the
rocks, not because of any major issues, or astronomical issues,
but of the trivial issues. Instead of sitting together and clearing
the air, they are not only spoiling their life, but the life of innocent
lamb, the divine gift namely the child. In marriage, often you have
to lose an argument in order to win your spouse. The worst pain
in life is when some one “you know” turns into some one “you
knew”. The couple should think twice before parting, for the sake
of their child. If the child is deprived of the love of a parent, there
is always a danger of the child drifting away from the
mainstream. The child needs not only feeding, but a decent
standard of living and it has to be protected in every way. The
couple should consider to save the marriage and not to break the
marriage for the future of their child. They should burry the
28/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
hatchet and start a new life, otherwise the Court has to find out a
way and pass an order to protect the child. How many childless
couples are longing to beget a child. The fighting couple should
rise above hate and come to terms.”
9.13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,
this Court finds no circumstance warranting the grant of a decree of divorce in
favour of the husband. Hence, this Court finds that none of the allegations
levelled by the husband constitute legally sustainable grounds for dissolution of
marriage and this Court holds that the petitioner has failed to establish any
ground recognized in law for the grant of a decree of divorce. The petitioner
has failed to establish mental cruelty by cogent and convincing evidence. The
petition for divorce, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. The divorce petition is
liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
10.The respondent-wife has filed C.M.P.No.35958 of 2026 in this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, seeking permission to
produce additional documents. The documents sought to be produced include
her reply notice dated 21.11.2020 expressing her bona fide intention to resume
cohabitation with the appellant-husband, the husband’s reply notice dated
09.12.2020, and another notice dated 25.12.2020.
29/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
10.1.This Court has already found, on the basis of the counter affidavit
filed by the respondent-wife, that she had a clear and bona fide intention to
rejoin the appellant and was willing to live with him. The said fact is
sufficiently borne out by the pleadings on record. Therefore, production of the
above notices as additional evidence is not necessary for adjudication of the
issues involved in this appeal. Mere production and marking of all such
documents is not required to establish the respondent-wife’s willingness to
resume matrimonial life. Accordingly, the petition seeking reception of
additional documents is closed as unnecessary.
11. Conclusion:
11.1.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2020 passed in H.M.O.P. No.9
of 2015 by the learned Family Court, Tiruchirappalli. There shall be no order as
to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[N.A.V.,J.] & [K.K.R.K.,J.]
28.07.2026NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
pal/sbn30/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020To
1.The Family Court,
Trichy.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
31/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
pal/sbn
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
C.M.A.(MD).No.671 of 2020
Dated: 28 .07.2026
32/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
