Hindu Wife Removing 'Thali' Amounts To Mental Cruelty To Husband: Madras High Court Grants Divorce
While upholding an order granting divorce to a man, the Madras High Court observed that the removal of the Thali (mangalsutra) by a Hindu wife would amount to mental cruelty upon the husband.
The court also observed after considering the evidence, the husband's allegation that the wife converted to Christiany also cannot be thrown away.
“The next ground for divorce is that the respondent/wife has removed the Thali. It is the evidence of the respondent/wife as R.W.1 that she clearly admitted that she removed 'Thali” and does not wear gold ornaments. So, the allegation of conversion to Christianity by the respondent/wife cannot be brushed aside, as there is no substance...," the court said.
On the issue of removal of Thali or mangalsutra the court referred to a division bench's judgment where it was held: "It is known fact that no Hindu married woman would remove the "Thali" at any point of time during the lifetime of her husband. "Thali" around the neck of a wife is a sacred thing which symbolises the continuance of married life and it is removed only after the death of Husband. Therefore, the removal of "Thali" by the petitioner/wife can be said to be an act, which reflected Mental Cruelty of highest order as it could have caused agony and hurted the sentiments of the respondent".
Justice P Vadamalai thereafter said:
"From the above, it is very clear that the respondent/wife adopted Christianity as her daughter's name and her marriage to a Christian is revealed from Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and hence, the allegation of conversion of religion by the respondent/wife cannot be thrown away upon consideration of the entire evidence on record. This Court holds that the removal of Thali would reflect mental cruelty".
Though the wife argued that the High Court cannot grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the court held that the same could be taken note of by the court while considering a plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
“A perusal of the rulings relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent/wife reveals that the argument of the respondent/wife's side is somewhat correct one, but at the same time, it cannot be construed that the Courts below and the High Court could not consider the fact of the marriage having irretrievably broken down while seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty,” the court said.
The couple had gotten married in 1977 and had a son and daughter from the wedlock. According to the husband, from the very beginning of marriage, the wife frequently quarrelled with him saying that he had illegal contact with several women and insulted him in public. He also submitted that the wife had even sent letters to his superior officers in the Army and lodged a police complaint against him, for which he was convicted for 7 years which was later reduced on appeal.
The husband also submitted that the wife had converted to Christianity and caused him mental agony. He argued that the wife also deserted hm and there was no possibility of reunion.
The wife, on the other hand, accused the husband of having illegal intimacy with other women. She submitted that when she questioned him against the same, he confined the wife and kids inside the house and set it on fire, for which she had given a police complaint. She argued that the husband started living with another woman and harassed the wife to give consent for marrying the other woman. However, when the wife refused, the husband cut her right thumb, for which the son gave a police complaint and the father was convicted.
The subordinate court allowed the husband's plea and granted divorce. On Appeal, the order was upheld by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi. Hence, the wife had filed the second appeal before the High Court.
The court noted that the wife had not produced any material to establish that the husband had illegal intimacy with other woman. At the same time, the wife had admitted in her evidence that she had written complaints to the husband's higher superiors regarding his illegal intimacy. The court underlines that when a spouse makes a defamatory complaint about the other spouse to his/her superiors was enough justification to seek divorce.
Though the wife claimed that the couple started living together after such complaint to supriors and thus the husband had deemed to have condoned the allegations by wife, the court noted that even while living together the couple had subsequent quarrels and the wife had filed cases.
The court thus concluded that the husband had established cruelty by wife and the courts below had had correctly decided the plea. Thus, noting that the wife had not established her case, the court dismissed the appeal.
Counsel for Appellat: Mr. S. Ramesh @ Ramiah
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M. P. Senthil for Mr. A. Mohamed Haneef
Case Title: V v. C
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
Case No: C.M.S.A(MD)No.44 of 2021