The Madras High Court has upheld a decree of divorce granted to a woman on the ground of mental cruelty, holding that repeatedly humiliating a wife, isolating her within the matrimonial home, questioning the paternity of her child, and demanding a DNA test constituted continuous acts of cruelty. The Court also directed the husband to return the woman’s sreedhana articles, observing that they remain her exclusive property and cannot be treated as assets of the matrimonial family.
A Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Rajasekar dismissed the husband’s appeals challenging the Family Court’s decree granting divorce and rejecting his plea for restitution of conjugal rights, while allowing the wife’s appeal seeking the return of her jewellery and other articles.
According to the wife, soon after her marriage in December 2014, she was subjected to continuous humiliation by her husband and his family. She alleged that she was not permitted to sit or dine with other family members, was made to eat only after everyone else had finished, was body-shamed, and was repeatedly told that the husband could have secured a better match with more dowry. She further alleged that after the birth of their son, the husband questioned whether the child was his and even demanded that she undergo a DNA test.
Affirming the Family Court’s findings, the High Court held that these acts, viewed cumulatively, amounted to mental cruelty. It observed that although some incidents may appear trivial in isolation, they had to be assessed from the perspective of a newly married woman who was subjected to isolation, humiliation and emotional neglect in her matrimonial home. The Court noted that the husband had failed to specifically deny several material allegations in his pleadings or challenge them during cross-examination.
The Bench described the husband’s conduct in questioning the paternity of his own child as an act that struck at the wife’s honour and self-respect. It also found that his lack of concern during her pregnancy, failure to enquire about her well-being, and refusal to welcome her and the newborn child back into the matrimonial home reflected continuous neglect and mental cruelty.
Rejecting the husband’s plea for restitution of conjugal rights, the Court observed that such a petition must reflect a genuine intention to resume matrimonial life. In the present case, the husband’s conduct before and after the birth of the child demonstrated otherwise. Holding that compelling the wife to resume cohabitation would only prolong her suffering, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the restitution petition.
On the wife’s claim for return of her sreedhana articles, the High Court disagreed with the Family Court’s refusal to grant relief. The court reiterated that sreedhana remains the exclusive property of the woman and observed that every article given by her parents carries not only monetary value but also deep sentimental significance. The Court held that the husband had failed to specifically deny the list of jewellery and articles furnished by the wife and that there was no material to support his claim that she had taken them away when she left the matrimonial home.
Accordingly, the Court directed the husband to return all the jewellery and other articles listed by the wife within four weeks, failing which he must pay their current market value along with 7.5% annual interest from the date of marriage until payment.
