The Madras High Court has held that the mere fact that a couple has children cannot prevent either spouse from seeking dissolution of a marriage that has effectively ceased to function.
A Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi made the observation while allowing a woman's appeal and granting her divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
“The mere fact that the parties have children cannot operate as a perpetual bar against a spouse seeking dissolution of a marriage.”
The Court emphasised that although the existence of children is undoubtedly relevant in matrimonial proceedings, it cannot compel a spouse to remain indefinitely in an oppressive matrimonial relationship where statutory grounds for divorce have been established.
The couple had married in May 2008 according to Christian rites and had two children.
The wife alleged that her husband was addicted to alcohol, frequently returned home drunk, abused and physically assaulted her and failed to contribute towards household expenses.
She stated that she was compelled to undertake tailoring work and borrow money to meet the family's expenses and fund the education of their children.
She further alleged that her husband had pledged her jewellery and left her to bear the family's financial liabilities.
The Family Court at Sivagangai, however, rejected her divorce petition. It noted, among other things, that she had not produced medical certificates or lodged police complaints concerning the alleged assaults. It also found that specific dates of the alleged assaults and dowry demands had not been established.
The High Court disagreed with the Family Court's approach, describing it as “hyper-technical.”
The Bench observed that matrimonial cruelty cannot be restricted only to conduct resulting in visible bodily injuries or incidents reported to the police.
A consistent course of conduct, when considered cumulatively, can amount to mental cruelty and make continuation of matrimonial life impossible, the Court held.
The absence of a wound certificate or a contemporaneous police complaint, by itself, does not establish that physical or mental cruelty did not occur.
The High Court also took note of the husband's conduct during the proceedings.
Despite service of notice, he remained absent before both the Family Court and the High Court. He neither entered the witness box nor produced evidence demonstrating that he had maintained his wife and children or made efforts to resume cohabitation.
The Bench held that his continued silence in the face of specific allegations against him assumed considerable significance.
The Court further clarified that the independent right of a wife and children to claim maintenance does not wipe out allegations of cruelty, neglect or desertion for the purposes of matrimonial proceedings.
On the facts, the Court found a continuing course of neglect, indifference, financial irresponsibility, alcoholism and failure to discharge responsibilities as a husband and father.
In an important observation, the Bench held:
“Physical violence is not an indispensable requirement for establishing mental cruelty.”
The Court reiterated that matrimonial cruelty may be established from the overall conduct of a spouse and its cumulative impact on the matrimonial relationship.
The High Court consequently set aside the Family Court's order and dissolved the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi
Court: Madras High Court
Marriage: May 2008
Children: Two
Outcome: Family Court order set aside; divorce granted on grounds of cruelty and desertion
Counsel: Advocate M. Saravanan appeared for the appellant-wife.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy