The Madras High Court ruled that a wife’s act of secretly arranging their daughter’s marriage without informing the father amounts to mental cruelty under matrimonial law, and granted divorce after finding her conduct caused distress preventing continuation thereafter.
The Madras High Court ruled that a wife’s decision to arrange her couple’s daughter’s marriage secretly without informing the father can amount to mental cruelty under matrimonial law.
Allowing the husband’s plea for divorce, the court held that the wife’s conduct in orchestrating the marriage without his knowledge, along with later actions such as filing police complaints, disputes involving the matrimonial home, and the removal of belongings, collectively caused such mental distress that continuing the marriage became impossible.
The judgment passed by Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Rajasekar was delivered while allowing appeals filed by G. Sridhar against orders of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai.
ALSO READ: Madhya Pradesh High Court: Divorce Over Wife’s Indecent Chats, Cites Mental Cruelty
On the issue of the daughter’s marriage, the division bench observed that the husband’s suffering as a father became evident once he discovered that his daughter had been married off without his knowledge to the wife’s brother, who is a divorcee.
The court held that this behaviour caused “extreme mental agony, pain and suffering” to the husband.
The husband approached the family court seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty.
He stated that their marriage was solemnised in 1997 and that two children were born. He claimed that the marital relationship deteriorated after the wife allegedly arranged their daughter’s marriage in Bengaluru without informing him.
The wife denied the allegations of cruelty and argued that since the daughter had attained majority, she was entitled to choose her life partner. She also maintained that the husband was aware of the marriage and that he had himself sent her to Bengaluru for the ceremony.
The wife further sought restitution of conjugal rights and alleged that the husband prevented her from entering the matrimonial home after her return.
The High Court held that the family court failed to properly evaluate the emotional impact of the incident from the father’s perspective. The bench noted that the wife did not deny arranging the marriage, nor did she dispute that the husband was not informed about it.
The court then considered whether such conduct could amount to mental cruelty and concluded that there was no justification for the wife to act surreptitiously in a significant family event such as a daughter’s wedding.
The court observed that the husband would have suffered “irreparable” agony upon learning that his daughter had been married to a substantially older divorcee without his knowledge.
The bench also took into account subsequent disputes between the parties. It noted allegations that the wife had locked the matrimonial home, broke open the flat during the husband’s absence, removed documents and belongings, and made complaints to police authorities as well as the husband’s superior officers.
The court held that these actions both individually and together caused serious mental agony and pain and harmed the husband’s reputation, making it difficult for him to continue matrimonial life.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Rules Public Humiliation of Husband by Wife as Mental Cruelty
The court further noted that the flat, which was originally purchased in the wife’s name, was eventually sold by her, and although the housing loan was cleared, the husband was deprived of the matrimonial residence.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the High Court reiterated that mental cruelty must be assessed in light of the overall matrimonial circumstances, including conduct that results in deep anguish, frustration, and emotional suffering.
Setting aside the family court’s orders, the High Court allowed the husband’s appeals and dissolved the marriage.
Case Title: G. Sridhar v. S. Komala Kumari