Questioning Paternity Of Child, Asking Wife To Undergo DNA Test Is Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce

“We hold that the respondent had committed continuous act of cruelty, particularly in challenging the paternity of the child born to him and we find no reason to differ with the findings of the Trial Court in this regard,” the bench said.

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar noted that when the wife came to the matrimonial home after the birth of the child, the husband had questioned her on who the father of the child was. The bench held that such a question would have shocked the wife to the extreme and it directly affected her honour and self-respect.

“More shockingly, when the petitioner entered the marital home with her baby in her arms, she was questioned by the respondent who the father was. This must have shocked her to the extreme. This question directly affected her honour and self respect. The pride of any woman is the fact that she had borne a heir to her husband's family. The extreme perversity of the respondent is evident in this attitude itself,” the bench observed.

The court also noted that the husband had filed a restitution of conjugal rights plea merely as a formality, without any real intention. The court added that having neglected the wife and the child, there could not be any restitution as the court could not trust the husband.

“He had neglected his wife prior to the birth of the child. He had neglected his wife subsequent to the birth of the child. He had neglected his wife and the child also after the birth of the child. There cannot be restitution in such circumstances. There cannot be exercised of conjugal right under such circumstances. The petitioner has had enough. The Court can never trust the respondent and grant restitution of conjugal rights,” the court noted.

The court was hearing appeals filed by the husband against a common order passed by the Family Court, by which, the plea for dissolution of marriage filed by the wife was allowed and the plea for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband was dismissed. The wife had also filed an appeal against the order of the Family Court, by which her plea for return of articles was rejected.

The parties had married each other on December 7, 2014 and commenced their marital life at the husband's house, which was a joint family. The wife argued that she suffered mental cruelty at the husband's place at early stage. She submitted that she was not permitted to have food along with the rest of the family members and was instructed to take food only after everyone else had taken their food.

Further, the wife submitted that the husband's family teased her about her appearance and used to show photographs of other women commenting that the wife was in a poor state when compared to them. She added that the family used to show photos of other women saying that they had agreed to marry the husband and would have brought in more dowry.

The wife also submitted that after she became pregnant, she went to her parents' house and during this time the husband did not visit her. She submitted that even after the birth of the son, the husband or his family did not organise any function to welcome the baby and in fact the husband had questioned the paternity of the child. She added that the husband and his family did not open the doors of the house, following which she left to her mother's house.

The husband denied the allegations and submitted that he had showered good love and affection on the wife, but she created problems with unjust demands. He submitted that he was not informed about the birth of the son and got to know it only through a distant relative. He also denied the wife's allegation that his family had taken custody of her articles and submitted that the wife had taken all her jewellery with her when she went to her mother's place.

The court rejected the arguments of the husband and said that it was extremely childish of the husband to say that he was not informed about the birth of the child. The court added that, as the father, a duty was cast upon the husband to continuously inquire about the health of his wife during her pregnancy.

The court also noted that the act of the family members in insulting the wife and saying that she was not a suitable match for the husband, body shaming the wife, and not permitting her to have food along with others in the family would all constitute mental cruelty. The court remarked that though these instances may seem trivial, when viewed from the point of view of a newly married bride, they would have affected her mental health.

The court added that a duty was cast upon a husband and his family to provide a friendly and conducive atmosphere when a young lady comes to their house.

With respect to the return of articles, the court noted that the Family Court had wrongly interpreted that the articles were given to the mother-in-law for temporary custody. The court also rejected the husband's argument that the wife had taken the articles with her when she left for her mother's house. The court noted that the wife was made to leave the matrimonial home in mental agony after being questioned about the paternity of the child, and at such a stage, there was no possibility of her taking away the jewels. The court also noted that the husband, in his counter, had not specifically denied the contentions, which would lead to a presumption in favour of the wife.

Thus, the court upheld the order of the Family Court, allowing the plea for dissolution of marriage. The court, however, set aside the order in connection with the return of articles and directed the husband to return all the articles to the wife within 4 weeks.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. M. Arvind Kumar

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Pinto

Case Title: V v. S

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 291

Case No: CMA.Nos.68 and 114 of 2024