Husband Seeking Divorce Over Wife's Accidental Hip Injury 'Inhumane', Against Constitutional Values: Madras High Court

“A person who has suffered accidental injuries cannot, by that reason alone, be branded as unfit for married life. To hold otherwise would amount to endorsing a discriminatory and inhuman approach towards persons who have health issues which this Court cannot countenance. It reflects a complete lack of empathy and humanity towards a spouse who had suffered accidental injuries before marriage,” the court said.

The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that a physical disability or an accidental injury does not render a person incapable of leading a happy and fulfilling matrimonial life. The court added that humanity demands a spouse to extend compassion, support, and adjustment to a partner who has suffered a physical disability, without treating such disability with contempt.

The bench also remarked that if accidental injuries sustained by a partner are taken as a ground for dissolution of marriage, the institution of marriage and the principles of matrimonial jurisprudence would be undermined.

“If accidental injuries sustained by a spouse either before or after marriage are accepted as sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage, the very institution of marriage and the principles underlying matrimonial jurisprudence would stand seriously undermined. Disability can not be seen as a crime or sin and cannot, by itself, diminish the dignity or worth of an individual…To ostracize or discriminate a person merely on account of disability is contrary to the constitutional values of equality, dignity, and non discrimination,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the husband against the Family Court's order, refusing to grant him divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty. According to the husband, the wife had sustained serious injuries in a road accident resulting in permanent physical disability. He argued that owing to the injury, the wife suffered from depression and was undergoing psychiatric treatment. He argued that these facts were not disclosed before marriage and such suppression had led to matrimonial discord.

The husband also argued that the wife failed to discharge her household duties, frequently picked up quarrels, and repeatedly threatened to commit suicide, causing him mental agony which amounted to mental cruelty.

The wife, on the other hand, refuted the allegations made by the husband. She submitted that the husband was aware about her injuries prior to marriage and only after that the marriage was solemnised and consummated. The wife also submitted that the couple had a child from the marriage and she had conceived for a second time also, but the pregnancy had to be aborted due to medical complications.

The wife submitted that the husband had physically assaulted her, which prompted her to approach the police. She submitted that she was mentally and physically assaulted by the husband and his family. At the same time, the wife also expressed her willingness to continue the matrimonial life.

The court noted that the marriage between the parties took place in 2010, and in 2011, a male child was born to them. The court also noted that the wife conceived for a second time, but the pregnancy was terminated due to medical reasons. The court thus noted that the husband had sought divorce primarily on the ground that the wife had a physical disability.

The court remarked that the stand taken by the husband was unfortunate and insensitive and showed hard-heartedness towards a person with health issues. The court noted that the husband's attitude showed a lack of empathy and compassion towards the wife, who became a victim of an unfortunate accident.

The court also added that the Hindu Marriage Act did not treat suppression of physical injury as a ground for divorce.

The court further noted that the evidence would clearly show that the parties continued their matrimonial life after marriage and there was nothing to show that the disability suffered by the wife, in any way, affected the matrimonial life or made her incapable of performing her matrimonial obligations.

"Across society, countless persons with disabilities discharge their marital and family responsibilities with dignity and mutual affection," it remarked.

The court also noted that though the husband had raised other grounds regarding cruelty by the wife or her continued threats to commit suicide, he had not produced any evidence to substantiate the same. The court emphasised that a marriage could not be dissolved merely because of incompatibility due to petty issues. The court added that it was bound to consider the welfare of the child, who usually became victims in such family cases.

Thus, finding the husband's argument to be devoid of merits, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Family Court.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. R. Venkatesan, M/s. Right Law Associates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. G. S. Asok Adhithyan

Case Title: U v M

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 351

Case No: CMA (MD) No 671 of 2020