The Madras High Court recently set aside a Family Court order and granted divorce to a man who had been estranged from his wife for over eight years. The wife had earlier made serious, unproven allegations of sexual harassment against the husband and his father, which were later withdrawn. The Court held that such unsubstantiated accusations—especially of a sexual nature—cause irreparable mental agony and amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Acknowledging the long-standing separation, the Court concluded that the marriage had broken down beyond repair.
Brief Facts of the Case
- The couple got married in September 2015 and had a son in July 2016.
- They stayed together for only 51 days after marriage, and the wife often left the matrimonial home.
- In 2017, the husband filed for divorce citing cruelty, while the wife later filed for restitution of conjugal rights.
- The wife made serious allegations, including sexual misconduct by the husband and his father, but withdrew the complaint later.
- The Family Court had earlier dismissed the husband’s divorce petition and allowed the wife’s plea for restitution.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
- Section 19, Family Courts Act, 1984 – Appeal provisions from Family Court judgments.
- Section 28, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal procedure for matrimonial cases.
️ Arguments by the Petitioner (Husband)
- The wife’s behaviour was emotionally and mentally abusive, making the marriage unbearable.
- She filed and later withdrew a police complaint containing highly defamatory allegations, without facing any consequences.
- Multiple false complaints and continued harassment affected his dignity and mental peace.
- After eight years of living apart, reconciliation was no longer a practical or emotional possibility.
Arguments by the Respondent (Wife)
- Claimed she moved out due to safety concerns and lack of support from in-laws.
- Maintained that the allegations in the police complaint were genuine, though later withdrawn based on the husband’s promise to reconcile.
- Asserted her continued desire to resume the marital relationship for the sake of their child.
Court’s Observation
- Held that sexual allegations, even if later withdrawn, cause deep and lasting harm unless clearly proved.
- Found no credible evidence supporting the wife’s claims.
- Noted that she made no real effort to revive or prove the allegations after reconciliation failed.
- Determined that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and living together again was no longer feasible.
Final Judgment
- The divorce was granted under Section 13(1)(i-a) on grounds of cruelty.
- The wife’s plea for restitution of conjugal rights was rejected.
- The marriage was formally dissolved.
- The right of the wife and minor child to claim maintenance remains unaffected.
Comments from the author of this website
This case once again highlights a troubling pattern in matrimonial disputes—where serious, reputation-destroying allegations can be made with minimal accountability. A man can be branded with accusations of sexual misconduct, pushed into legal defense mode, and even forced to seek anticipatory bail—all without the complainant ever proving the charges. Even when the complaint is withdrawn, the damage remains: emotionally, socially, and professionally.
What’s even more concerning is how easily such allegations are dismissed as “misunderstandings” or “tactics to reconcile” when made by the wife. Had roles been reversed, would the system have responded with the same tolerance? The husband in this case endured years of litigation, separation, and character attacks—only to be told later that the accusations couldn’t be verified. The fact that such conduct doesn’t trigger any legal consequences or deterrents raises serious questions about fairness, misuse of protective laws, and the lack of safeguards for the falsely accused.
Final Thoughts:
This judgment offers a measure of relief to those who have been unfairly vilified in matrimonial disputes, but it also brings to light the glaring need for systemic reform. The ruling recognizes that false, unproven, and unsubstantiated accusations are not harmless—they amount to mental cruelty and have long-lasting effects. While upholding the wife and child’s right to maintenance is just, there must also be mechanisms to address misuse of legal protections. A fair system must protect the vulnerable, but also not be blind to its own potential for being misused.
Read Complete Judgement Here