The Madras High Court, in its common judgment dated 24.04.2026 delivered by Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Rajasekar in CMA Nos.1155 and 1156 of 2024, allowed the appeals filed by G. Sridharan, the husband, and set aside the common fair and decreetal order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the III Additional Family Court, Chennai in HMOP No.2289 of 2017 and IA No.1 of 2020. The High Court granted divorce to the husband on the ground of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and dismissed the wife’s application for restitution of conjugal rights.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 17.04.1997 at Punganur, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh as an arranged marriage. Two children were born — daughter G.S. Harshitha and son G.S. Jathin. The husband, employed as Assistant Engineer in Greater Chennai Corporation, alleged that from the date of marriage the wife demanded various facilities, concentrated on his income and wealth, insulted him, criticised him in front of others and did not share matrimonial relationship. The triggering point occurred on 19.06.2017 when the wife left the matrimonial home with the daughter and returned a week later, informing him that the daughter had married the wife’s own brother at Bangalore. The husband contended that the daughter had just completed 18 years of age and the wife’s brother was a divorcee who had earlier married the husband’s niece, faced police complaints and custody in that marriage. The surreptitious conduct of the marriage without informing or inviting him was pleaded as an act of cruelty.
The wife denied the allegations of cruelty and stated that she performed her matrimonial obligations. Regarding the daughter’s marriage, she submitted that the daughter had developed a relationship with her brother and in the interest of both, she conducted the marriage. She alleged that upon return from Bangalore she was prevented from entering the matrimonial home, necessitating a police complaint, and that her certificates and belongings were removed. She also filed IA No.1 of 2020 seeking restitution of conjugal rights stating that she wanted to reside with the husband.
During trial, the husband examined himself as PW1 and marked documents relating to the flat purchase. The wife examined herself as RW1 and marked documents including her complaint. The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition holding that the daughter had attained majority and had the right to choose her partner, and allowed the wife’s application for restitution of conjugal rights.
The High Court, after considering the pleadings, evidence and arguments, observed that the fact that the wife took the daughter to Bangalore and got her married to her own brother, a divorcee aged about 32-33 years, just months after the daughter turned 18, without informing or inviting the husband, was neither denied nor disputed. The Court noted that the wife played a very important role in the marriage and that from 2013 the brother had not visited the house, ruling out any prior relationship. It held that when the wife intended to marry the daughter to her brother, it would have been appropriate to inform the husband, who as a father would have liked to be present. The surreptitious manner caused the husband extreme mental agony, pain and suffering as a parent, which could never be compensated, especially given the background of the brother-in-law.
The High Court further noted that the wife’s subsequent acts — preventing entry, locking the house, breaking open the flat in the husband’s absence, removing belongings, lodging police complaint and complaint to superior officers — cumulatively caused serious mental agony making it impossible for the husband to live with the wife. It referred to the judgment in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 enumerating instances of mental cruelty including acts causing deep mental pain, sustained abusive conduct, and situations where the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to continue living with the other. The Court held that the Family Judge had misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence and that the acts independently and cumulatively constituted mental cruelty.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed both appeals, set aside the orders of the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition and granting restitution of conjugal rights, and directed no costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Case Title: G. Sridharan v. S.K. Sridharan
Case No.: CMA Nos.1155 & 1156 of 2024 and CMP No.10460 of 2024
Court: Madras High Court
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Rajasekar
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 