Madras High Court rules that unsubstantiated allegations of wife against husband and father -in-law constitutes mental cruelty for grant of divorce under Sec 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

INTRODUCTION

The Madras High Court, in a judgment dated June 4, 2025, ruled that unsubstantiated allegations of sexual harassment leveled by a wife against her husband and father-in-law constitute mental cruelty, providing sufficient grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 

Facts and Background 

The couple married in September 2015 and had a son in July 2016. Marital disputes arose soon after, leading the husband to file for divorce in October 2017, alleging that the wife had lived with him for only about 51 days over the first two years of marriage, frequently returned to her parental home, was quarrelsome, verbally abusive, belittled his rural background, and imposed unreasonable demands such as requiring him to return home by 5 p.m. despite his job at an engineering college. He also claimed she threatened suicide and false dowry allegations,and forced him to resign from his job to join an IT company. The wife countered by filing for restitution of conjugal rights in 2021, expressing willingness to reconcile, and cited family dynamics at her parental home as a factor.

During the proceedings, the wife lodged a police complaint in 2017 at an All-Women Police Station, accusing the father-in-law of sexual harassment and the husband of perverse behavior, including involvement in casual relationships with multiple women. She also filed a domestic violence case and additional complaints to various authorities, but failed to appear for inquiries, leading to their closure. The husband sought anticipatory bail due to the complaint, which compelled him to address the serious allegations. The wife withdrew the police complaint later in 2017 via a letter signed by her, her parents, and her brother, stating that certain allegations had "inadvertently crept in" without her knowledge, and claiming the withdrawal was based on the husband's assurance to reunite. However, no reconciliation occurred, and the couple had been living separately for eight years by the time of the High Court appeal, with failed mediation attempts in 2024. The husband had been paying ₹25,000 monthly maintenance to the wife and their son, who remained in her custody.

Observations 

The court dismissed several of the husband's initial allegations—such as the wife's frequent visits to her parental home during pregnancy or the claim that she forced his job resignation—as unsubstantiated or typical of early marital adjustments, not amounting to cruelty. However, it focused on the police complaint, noting that the wife failed to revive or pursue it through investigation or trial after the alleged failed assurance from the husband. The allegations, described as serious, defamatory, and of a sexual nature, remained unproven and uncorroborated, causing irreparable stigma, mental agony, and trauma to the husband and his family. The Bench emphasized that if the claims were true, the wife should have substantiated them in a criminal court; their unsubstantiated status rendered them acts of mental cruelty, making reconciliation impossible and justifying the husband's refusal to resume marital life. The prolonged separation and lack of consensus in mediation further supported the finding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.

Decision 

The High Court allowed the husband's appeal, granting a decree of divorce and dissolving the marriage while dismissing the wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights. It clarified that the divorce does not affect the wife's and child's entitlement to maintenance or enhanced maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, or other applicable laws.