False Allegations, Police Complaints and Years of Separation – Marriage Is Beyond Repair: Madras High Court Grants Divorce, Sets Aside Judicial Separation

“The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie” – Madras High Court delivered a decisive judgment dissolving a marriage that had been strained by persistent cruelty, malicious accusations, and over a decade of separation. In a compelling verdict delivered by Justices R. Suresh Kumar and Dr. A.D. Maria Clete allowed the husband’s appeal challenging a Family Court order that had granted judicial separation instead of divorce. The High Court granted divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, declaring that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to sustained mental cruelty inflicted by the wife.

The case, which began in the Family Court in Coimbatore, involved conflicting petitions – the husband sought divorce on grounds of cruelty, while the wife filed for restitution of conjugal rights. However, the Family Court, despite rejecting both substantive prayers, invoked Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act to grant judicial separation to both parties. This creative yet incorrect exercise of discretion was critically examined and ultimately reversed by the High Court.

"No power to grant judicial separation under Section 9": High Court says Family Court exceeded jurisdiction

The High Court was unambiguous in its view that the Family Court acted beyond the statutory framework by granting judicial separation in a petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court observed:

“While the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the Court to grant a decree of judicial separation in a petition filed for divorce, no such power is contemplated in a petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights.”

In doing so, the Family Court had not only granted a relief that was not sought, but also violated jurisdictional limits. Since the respondent-wife had not appealed the rejection of her restitution claim, the High Court found no basis for sustaining the order of judicial separation.

"Wild accusations, repeated abuse, and refusal of cohabitation constitute cruelty" – Court finds mental cruelty proved

The High Court took a detailed look at the allegations raised by the husband, which included abusive behaviour, physical assault, and serious accusations of bigamy. Most notably, the wife had accused the husband of having contracted a second marriage – an allegation that she later admitted was based only on hearsay.

In a sharply worded passage, the Court held: “The respondent candidly admitted that her allegation was not based on any direct knowledge but merely on what she had heard from others. Thus, she failed to substantiate her wild and baseless allegation.”

The husband also produced photographic evidence of physical injuries allegedly caused by the wife. The Family Court had discounted this on the ground that the husband's mother, who allegedly took the photo, was not examined. The High Court disagreed, holding that:

“The mere non-examination of family members cannot, by itself, discredit otherwise cogent and consistent testimony of the petitioner… In the absence of any substantial challenge to the petitioner’s credibility, his evidence could not have been discarded.”

The Court further noted that the wife had filed multiple complaints, including a dowry harassment FIR and a domestic violence case, but failed to produce any corroborative evidence in support. The cumulative effect of these actions, said the Court, amounted to cruelty.

“The marriage is a fiction”: Court invokes Samar Ghosh and Shilpa Sailesh to hold marriage beyond repair

Citing the landmark decision in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, the High Court reiterated the principle that long-term separation and emotional hostility can be sufficient grounds for divorce. It quoted:

“Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie.”

The Court also relied on Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, observing that irreconcilable differences and absence of mutual trust were visible in this case, making reconciliation impossible.

The Court was especially moved by the wife’s conduct in litigation. Despite seeking restitution of conjugal rights, she expressed willingness to hand over custody of the minor child to the husband without even asking for visitation rights. The Court noted:

“Such an admission can hardly be reconciled with the claim that she desired to resume matrimonial life. It only reinforces the conclusion that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.”

“Relief must flow from law, not from misplaced discretion” – Family Court's decision overturned

The Family Court’s decision to grant judicial separation under Section 13A was also critiqued for ignoring the law’s boundaries. While that provision allows a court to grant judicial separation in place of divorce, it cannot be applied to a restitution petition under Section 9. The High Court was categorical:

“The Family Court, in extending judicial separation to a petition under Section 9, went beyond the scope of its power. The judicial separation under H.M.O.P. No. 1228 of 2014 is without jurisdiction.”

Maintenance enhanced from ₹30,000 to ₹40,000, considering child’s education and inflation

The High Court also addressed the matter of maintenance. The Family Court had granted ₹30,000 per month for the wife and minor child. Considering that four years had elapsed and the child was now older, the Court enhanced the maintenance to ₹40,000 per month.

“Taking into account the child’s current age... the monthly maintenance is enhanced to Rs. 40,000/- from the date of this order.”

Divorce granted, judicial separation set aside, and RCR dismissed

In conclusion, the High Court passed the following orders:

1. The common judgment dated 23.02.2021 of the Family Court was set aside.

2. The marriage between the parties solemnised on 06.06.2011 was dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia).

3. The judicial separation granted under the wife’s RCR petition was held to be without jurisdiction and accordingly quashed.

4. The maintenance was enhanced to ₹40,000 per month, payable from the date of receipt of the judgment copy.

The judgment offers a stern reminder that false accusations and hostile conduct in marriage can have serious legal consequences, and that courts must adhere strictly to the statutory framework while exercising discretion. It reinforces that marriage, when reduced to a legal shell devoid of trust or companionship, should not be preserved in name alone.

Date of Decision: 25 April 2025