A broken marriage cannot be kept alive only for the sake of the children, the Madras High Court has held, upholding a Family Court decree of divorce granted to a wife on the ground of cruelty.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Madurai: Dismissing a husband’s appeals against a Family Court order that granted his wife a divorce and rejected his plea for restitution of conjugal rights, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the welfare of children cannot be made a ground to compel spouses to remain in a relationship that has ceased to be workable [G v. B].
A Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi decided C.M.A.(MD) Nos. 804 and 805 of 2022. The judgment, authored by Justice Sumathi, was reserved on September 10, 2026 and delivered on October 8, 2026.
The case
The parties married in 2005 and have two children, born in 2006 and 2011. In 2020 the wife sought divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty, including harassment, physical violence and suspicion of her fidelity. The husband denied the allegations and made allegations of his own about the wife’s conduct, which she contested. He filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and said he was willing to take her back.
By a common order of July 1, 2022, the Family Court at Theni allowed the divorce petition and dismissed the husband’s petition. It noted that the allegations were known to family, the police and the community, and that the possibility of the parties living together peacefully had become remote.
One spouse’s willingness is not enough
The husband argued that the Family Court relied on assumptions and did not consider the children’s welfare. The High Court disagreed, holding that a unilateral offer to resume the marriage does not prove that it can work:
“the mere expression of willingness on the part of one spouse cannot, by itself, establish”
The Bench added that mutual trust, respect, companionship and affection are the foundation of a marriage, and once that foundation is badly damaged it cannot be restored by one party’s stated willingness.
Children and a house of discord
On the children, the Court accepted that their welfare is an important consideration in matrimonial proceedings but held that it cannot decide the matter on its own:
“the welfare of the children cannot be made a ground to compel the parties”
The Bench observed that a child growing up amid constant discord becomes “a silent sufferer”, and that it is not enough to give a child a house to live in; a child needs a home built on cordiality between parents. It also held that divorce does not end a father’s parental obligations towards the children.
The order
Finding no perversity or material illegality in the Family Court’s reasoning, and noting that the husband’s arguments amounted to a request to re-appreciate the evidence, the Bench dismissed both appeals and confirmed the common order and decree of July 1, 2022. No costs were awarded.
Why the judgment matters
Courts often hesitate to dissolve a marriage where there are children. This judgment states plainly that child welfare is a weighty factor but not a veto, and that the question is whether the marriage is still workable, not whether one spouse is willing to carry on.
It also shows how an appellate court approaches a divorce decree: unless the Family Court’s findings are perverse, the High Court will not reopen the evidence merely because one side wishes to try again.
Case Title: G v. B [C.M.A.(MD) Nos. 804 and 805 of 2022]
Bench: Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi, Madurai Bench, Madras High Court
Date of Judgment: October 8, 2026
Appearances: Advocate D. Malaichamy for the appellant; Advocate M.S. Jeyakarthick for the respondent