Husband's Paternity Doubt, DNA Test Demand Is Mental Cruelty: Madras HC Affirms Divorce [Read Judgment]

Madurai: A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that a husband questioning his child's paternity and asking the wife to undergo a DNA test amounts to mental cruelty, dismissing his appeals against the divorce decree and rejection of restitution, and allowing the wife's appeal for return of her streedhana articles.

Background

The Madurai Bench, comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Rajasekar, was hearing three connected Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arising from a common order passed by the VI Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, in three separate proceedings between the same couple. The wife had filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty. The husband had filed a separate petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, and the wife had also filed an interlocutory application seeking a direction to the husband to return gold, silver and other articles given to her as streedhana at the time of marriage.

In her petition, the wife alleged persistent ill-treatment from the early days of the marriage, including false pre-marital representations about the husband's income, dowry-related demands, exclusion from family meals, humiliation over her cooking, and body-shaming during pregnancy. She further alleged that after the birth of their son, the husband questioned the child's paternity and asked her to undergo a DNA test, and that when she returned home with the newborn, the family refused to let her in and abused her from the balcony.

The husband denied the allegations, but most of the specific averments were not specifically traversed or challenged in cross-examination. The Trial Court, after a joint trial of all three proceedings, held that the husband's conduct amounted to mental cruelty, granted the decree of divorce, dismissed his plea for restitution of conjugal rights, and also dismissed the wife's application for return of the articles, holding that the jewels were in her own custody. All three findings were carried in appeal.

Arguments

Counsel for the wife submitted that the husband's conduct, especially questioning the paternity of the child, along with the persistent seclusion and humiliation inflicted on her, amounted to cruelty, and that these instances had not been denied by the husband either in his counter or in cross-examination. It was argued that the streedhana articles, admittedly kept in a cupboard provided to the wife, continued to be in the custody of the husband's family. Reliance was placed on Maya Gopinathan versus Anoop S.B. and Another (2024 SCC OnLine SC 609) on the failure to produce documentary evidence regarding the streedhana articles.

Counsel for the husband contended that the allegations were flimsy exaggerations amounting to ordinary wear and tear of marital life, unsupported by independent evidence, relying on A. Sugumar versus K.S. Chitra (C.M.A.No.887 of 2010) that minor instances cannot found a decree of divorce. It was further contended that the streedhana articles had already been taken away by the wife, and that the husband was ready and willing to resume conjugal life with her.

Analysis

Examining the record, the court held that the husband's act of questioning the paternity of his own child and asking the wife to undergo a DNA test, an allegation never specifically denied or challenged in cross-examination, would have caused her severe mental agony and, by itself, amounted to a specific and grave act of cruelty. The court held that this finding, coupled with the husband's failure to specifically deny the other detailed instances of cruelty and his admission that a cupboard had been given to store the streedhana articles, weighed heavily against him. The court also noted that the husband himself had lodged a police complaint against the wife, and relying on K. Srinivas Rao versus D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226, observed that "filing complainants containing indecent allegations" can itself amount to mental cruelty.

On the streedhana articles, the court held that such property remains the wife's exclusive property and cannot be treated as belonging to the joint family. The husband had not specifically denied the itemised list, and his shifting stand, first claiming he never had the articles, later admitting in cross-examination that he could not say what she had taken with her, was found unreliable. There was no occasion for the wife to have carried away the jewels when she merely went to her parents' house for delivery, and the cupboard given to her remained in the matrimonial home. On restitution of conjugal rights, the court held that the remedy could not be granted where the husband had neglected his wife before, during and after the birth of their child, with no genuine intent to resume the marriage.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the appeals against the dismissal of the restitution petition and the grant of divorce, and allowed the wife's appeal concerning the streedhana articles. The husband was directed to return the jewels and other articles within four weeks, failing which the wife was held entitled to recover their value with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of marriage until payment. No costs were awarded.

Appearances: Mr. M. Arvind Kumar appeared for the appellant(s) in CMA Nos.68 and 114 of 2024 and for the respondent in CMA No.2609 of 2025 (husband's side); Mr. Sanjay Pinto appeared for the respondent(s) in CMA Nos.68 and 114 of 2024 and for the appellant in CMA No.2609 of 2025 (wife's side).

Case Title: Wife versus Husband (Parties' Names Withheld), CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025

[Read Judgment]