Wife Marrying Off Daughter Secretly Constitutes Mental Cruelty to Husband: Madras HC [Read Judgment]

Chennai: The Madras High Court has granted divorce to a husband, holding that a wife’s act of arranging and solemnising the marriage of their daughter without the husband’s knowledge amounted to mental cruelty.

The Court observed that a father’s pain at being excluded from one of the most significant events in his daughter’s life is deep and irreparable, and that no justification can diminish that anguish.

The husband, G. Sridhar, an Assistant Engineer with the Greater Chennai Corporation, had married S. Komala Kumari in April 1997, and the couple had two children — a daughter and a son. The husband alleged that the wife had, from the very beginning of the marriage, been preoccupied with his income and wealth, often insulted him, spoken disparagingly about him before others, and withheld matrimonial relations. Despite these tensions, the couple continued to live together and raised both children.

The critical turning point came in June 2017, when the wife left the matrimonial home along with their daughter without informing the husband. About a week later, she returned alone and informed him that the daughter, who had just turned 18, had been married to the wife’s own brother in Bangalore. The husband was neither informed about the marriage beforehand nor invited to attend it, and came to know about it only after the wedding had already been solemnised. He contended that the wife’s brother was a divorcee in his early thirties who had previously been married to the husband’s own niece, and against whom a police complaint had been lodged, leading to his arrest.

The husband filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty before the III Additional Family Court, Chennai.

The wife denied all the allegations. She stated that the daughter had herself developed a relationship with her brother and that the marriage was conducted in the interest of both parties. She further claimed that when she returned from Bangalore, the husband had barred her from entering the matrimonial home, forcing her to approach the police. She also stated that her certificates and personal belongings had been removed from the house. Apart from filing a counter affidavit in the divorce proceedings, the wife also filed an application seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

The Family Court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition and allowed the wife’s application for restitution of conjugal rights. Aggrieved by both orders, the husband filed two separate appeals before the Madras High Court.

A division bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Rajasekar set aside both orders passed by the Family Court. The Court noted that several key facts were neither denied nor disputed by the wife — namely, that the daughter was married in Bangalore without informing the husband; that the wife had played an active role in arranging the marriage; that the marriage occurred just months after the daughter had turned 18; and that the groom was a divorcee who had earlier been arrested following a police complaint. The son, who was examined during the trial, also confirmed that both the wife and daughter had left the house together and that the daughter was married in Bangalore without informing anyone.

The Court found the wife’s explanation — that the daughter had eloped to Bangalore on her own — to be implausible. It noted from the evidence that the wife’s brother had stopped visiting their home after 2013, making it unlikely that the daughter had independently developed a relationship with him. The Court concluded that the wife had independently and deliberately arranged the marriage, fully aware that the husband would have objected, and had intentionally concealed it from him until it became a fait accompli.

The Court emphasised that the question was not whether the marriage ultimately turned out to be good or bad for the daughter, but how the entire episode must have affected the appellant as a father. The agony of not being informed about — let alone invited to — his own daughter’s wedding, and later learning that she had been married to a 32-year-old divorcee with a troubled past, was something no father could reasonably be expected to endure without profound mental suffering.

Beyond the marriage episode, the Court also found additional acts of cruelty. The wife had allegedly broken open the flat when the husband was away, removed personal belongings and important documents, failed to pay the housing loan EMIs, sold the flat for ₹60 lakhs, and retained the balance amount of ₹20 lakhs after clearing the loan, thereby leaving the couple without a matrimonial home. She had also lodged complaints against the husband before his superior officers, damaging his professional reputation.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s framework in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, the High Court held that these acts, viewed individually as well as cumulatively, had caused grave and irreparable mental agony to the husband. The Trial Court was found to have misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, the divorce petition was decreed, and the order granting restitution of conjugal rights was set aside.

Appearances: Mr. N. Mariappan, Advocate, appeared for the appellant/husband, while Mr. D. Nellaiappan, Advocate, appeared for the respondent/wife.

Case Title: G. Sridhar v. S. Komala Kumari

[Read Judgment]