The Madras High Court observed that voluntary removal of the thali may, depending on the facts of a case, cause emotional anguish and amount to mental cruelty. However, the Court clarified that removal of the thali is not automatically a ground for divorce and must be assessed in context.
The Madras High Court observed that when a wife voluntarily removes the thali, such an act may carry significant emotional and symbolic implications. According to the Court, a husband could reasonably perceive the removal of the thali as a rejection of the marital bond, causing him emotional pain, anguish, and hurt sentiments. For this reason, the earlier Bench had held that the removal of the thali could, in the facts of that case, amount to an act reflecting mental cruelty.
However, it is important to note that the Court did not lay down a universal rule that removal of the thali automatically constitutes mental cruelty or is by itself a ground for divorce. Rather, the significance of such an act depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the surrounding conduct of the parties and the overall state of the marital relationship.
While referring to an earlier decision, It observed that in many Hindu communities the thali (or mangalsutra) is regarded as a sacred symbol of marriage and the continuation of the marital relationship. The Court noted that, as a matter of social and cultural practice, married Hindu women generally do not remove the thali during the lifetime of their husbands, and it is traditionally associated with the husband’s well-being and the subsistence of the marriage.
The Division Bench comprising Justices V.M. Velumani and S. Sounthar allowed a husband’s appeal and granted him a decree of divorce after concluding that he had been subjected to mental cruelty by his wife.
Factual Backgrounds
The appeal arose from a challenge to a lower court’s decision that had refused to dissolve the marriage on the ground that the evidence presented by the husband was insufficient to establish mental cruelty. Dissatisfied with that finding, the husband approached the High Court seeking relief.
The couple had reportedly been living separately since 2011. During the proceedings, the husband alleged that his wife had repeatedly suspected his character, accused him of maintaining an extra-marital relationship, and publicly humiliated him before colleagues, students, and even law enforcement authorities. According to him, these actions caused severe emotional distress and made it impossible for the marital relationship to continue.
The wife, on the other hand, contested the allegations and opposed the plea for divorce.
Observations of the High Court
While considering the appeal, the Division Bench examined the evidence placed on record and the conduct of the parties throughout the marriage. The Court noted that the wife’s accusations regarding the husband’s alleged extra-marital affair were not substantiated by evidence. It further observed that such allegations had been made not only privately but also in public settings where they had the potential to damage the husband’s reputation and dignity.
The Bench found that repeatedly casting aspersions on a spouse’s character and publicly accusing him of infidelity could inflict serious emotional suffering and constitute mental cruelty under matrimonial law.
ALSO READ: Madhya Pradesh High Court: Divorce Over Wife’s Indecent Chats, Cites Mental Cruelty
After reviewing the facts and the legal precedents governing mental cruelty, the Court recorded the following finding:
“In the light of the decisions referred above, we have no hesitation in holding that in the present case, the respondent /wife caused mental cruelty to the husband by suspecting his character and making false allegations of extra marital affair in the presence of his colleagues and students and also before the police. We are given to understand that the appellant and the respondent are living separately from 2011 onwards and there is no evidence available on record to show that respondent has made any attempt for a reunion during this period.”
This passage formed the core of the Court’s reasoning while granting the decree of divorce.
Apart from the allegations of mental cruelty, the Court also considered certain circumstances surrounding the prolonged separation of the parties. During her examination as a witness, the wife admitted that she had removed the thali chain a sacred chain traditionally worn by married Hindu women at the time of separation. She clarified, however, that she had retained the thali and had merely removed the chain.
Her counsel argued that tying a thali is not an essential requirement under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore its removal could not affect the legal validity of the marriage.
The Court acknowledged this argument but noted the cultural and social significance attached to the thali in many Hindu marriages, particularly in southern India. While discussing this aspect, the Bench referred to an earlier decision of a coordinate Bench of the Madras High Court in Vallabhi v. R. Rajasabahi.
The judgment reproduced the following observations from the earlier decision:
“33. From the materials available on record, it is also seen that the petitioner has removed the “Thali”(Mangalsutra) and it is also her own admission that she has kept the same in Banck locker. It is known fact that no Hindu married woman would remove the “Thali” at any point of time during the lifetime of her husband. “Thali” around the neck of a wife is a sacred thing which symbolises the continuance of married life and it is removed only after the death of Husband. Therefore, the removal of “Thali” by the petitioner/wife can be said to be an act which reflected Mental Cruelty of highest order as it could have caused agony and hurted the sentiments of the respondent.”
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Rules Public Humiliation of Husband by Wife as Mental Cruelty
The Bench cited this earlier ruling as a relevant precedent while evaluating the circumstances of the present case. Importantly, the High Court did not treat the removal of the thali chain as an independent or automatic ground for granting divorce.
After discussing the earlier precedent, the Court specifically clarified that removal of the thali chain by itself could not dissolve a marriage or conclusively establish cruelty. Instead, it considered the conduct as one among several circumstances that could assist the Court in understanding the parties’ intentions regarding reconciliation.
The Bench observed:
“The removal of thali chain is often treated as an unceremonious act. We don’t say for a moment that removal of thali chain per se sufficient to put an end to the marital knot, but the said act of respondent is a piece of evidence in drawing an inference about the intentions of the parties. The act of respondent in removal of thali chain at the time of separation coupled with various other evidences available on record, compel us to come to a definite conclusion that the parties have no intention to reconcile and continue the marital knot.”
This clarification demonstrates that the Court viewed the removal of the thali chain only as a supporting evidentiary circumstance rather than the decisive factor behind the divorce decree.
In the present case, the operative findings clearly indicate that the Court’s conclusion regarding mental cruelty was founded on the wife’s conduct in making false allegations and publicly questioning the husband’s fidelity. The reference to the thali chain was not treated as a standalone legal rule warranting divorce.