Is this just a private marital dispute or the beginning of a high-stakes legal battle involving reputation, alimony and public image? What exactly has been alleged in court by actor Vijay’s wife, and how could this impact one of Tamil cinema’s biggest stars?
TAMIL NADU: Actor-turned-politician Joseph Vijay’s wife, Sangeetha Sornalingam, has approached the Chengalpettu Family Court seeking divorce. In her petition, she has accused the actor and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) leader of infidelity and alleged that he has been involved in an extramarital relationship since April 2021.
The plea has been filed under specific provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which permit a spouse to seek dissolution of marriage on grounds including adultery and cruelty. She has sought dissolution of marriage under Section 27(1)(a),(b),(d) of the Special Marriage Act.
As stated in the petition, Sangeeta has alleged that Vijay was involved in an extramarital relationship with an actress.
She claims:
“Petitioner discovered in 2021 that Respondent was involved in an adulterous relationship with an actress.”
According to her, this discovery caused deep emotional pain and mental suffering and led to a breakdown of marital trust.
The report further notes that despite alleged assurances from Vijay that he would end the relationship, it continued.
The petition further states:
“Respondent even after assuring to end relationship continued the adulterous relationship without remorse.”
She has described this as prolonged mental cruelty and betrayal.
The petition states that she initially tried to resolve the issue amicably. However, no settlement was reached. She has mentioned that the matter was earlier deferred considering the children’s studies and emotional well-being.
Apart from divorce, Sangeetha has sought the right to reside in the matrimonial home and has claimed permanent alimony commensurate with Vijay’s income and social standing. In high-profile matrimonial disputes, claims of this nature often bring financial exposure and public scrutiny for the earning spouse, especially when career, public image and political aspirations are involved.
Considering the sensitivity and publicity surrounding the parties, she has requested in-camera proceedings to protect privacy. She has also sought an interim injunction to restrain media houses from hosting, interviewing or publishing any material related to the proceedings.
The matter is presently before the District Court and proceedings are ongoing. No final decision has been passed.
While the actress named in the petition has not been officially identified, rumours linking Vijay with actress Trisha Krishnan have circulated for several years. However, neither Vijay nor Trisha has publicly confirmed such claims.
Speculation about marital trouble between Vijay and Sangeetha had surfaced last year as well, though no official clarification was issued at that time.
Vijay and Sangeetha have been married since August 1999 and are parents to two children, Jason Sanjay and Divya Shasha. The legal battle now moves to court, where allegations, financial claims and reputational stakes will be examined strictly on the basis of evidence and law.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Provision | What It Covers | Relevance in This Case |
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Section 27(1)(a) | Divorce on ground of adultery | Allegation that respondent engaged in an adulterous relationship |
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Section 27(1)(b) | Divorce on ground of cruelty | Claim of mental cruelty arising from alleged conduct |
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Section 27(1)(d) | Divorce where respondent has treated petitioner with cruelty | Used to substantiate prolonged mental suffering |
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Section 36 (Interim Alimony) | Maintenance during pendency of proceedings | Relevant if interim financial relief is sought |
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Section 37 (Permanent Alimony) | Permanent maintenance and financial support after divorce | Claim for permanent alimony commensurate with income and status |
| Family Courts Act, 1984 | Section 11 | In-camera proceedings | Request for privacy due to public profile |
| Civil Procedure Principles (Interim Relief) | Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC (by analogy in civil relief) | Temporary injunctions | Sought to restrain media publication related to proceedings |
Case Details
- Case Title: Sangeetha v. Joseph Vijay
- Court: Chengalpettu Family Court (District Court)
- Nature of Case: Petition seeking dissolution of marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954
Key Takeaways
- Allegations of adultery and cruelty are enough to drag a man into prolonged matrimonial litigation, regardless of final proof.
- Along with divorce, claims for permanent alimony and residence rights place immediate financial pressure on the earning spouse.
- Reputation damage begins the moment a petition becomes public, long before any court decides guilt or innocence.
- Media restraint is sought only after allegations are filed, but the public narrative is already shaped against the man.
- In high-profile marriages, the legal system becomes not just a forum for separation, but a battleground of image, money and leverage.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.