Wife Staying At Parents' House After Childbirth While Husband Is Abroad Can't Be Treated As Desertion: Madras High Court

“But, at any rate, we hold that since the appellant [husband] was not in this country, he cannot now complain about the conduct of the respondent [wife] herein. She had to necessarily go to her mother's house for the birth of the child. She had to remain in her mother's house even after the child birth. That cannot be stated to be an act of desertion,” the court said.

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar also noted that the husband had made baseless allegations against the wife, saying that she was in close contact with a male person. The court noted that such acts would drive the wife to grieve over the allegation and remain at her mother's place, and the same could not be seen as desertion.

“This false allegation would have naturally affected the respondent herein. There was no necessity for the appellant herein to levy such a baseless allegation as against his own wife who had just given birth to a child. This conduct of the appellant, would only make the respondent grieve over the allegations and it would have been impossible for her to reconcile over such an allegation. It is not an act of desertion. The allegation raised by the appellant herein had driven the respondent to go to her mother's house,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the husband against the order of the Family Court in Tiruppur dismissing a divorce petition filed by him under Sections 13(1)(i-a), 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The husband had argued that after the marriage in January 2012, he had to go to Singapore after 7 months. He submitted that after going to Singapore, he was sending money to his mother which was known to the wife. Aggrieved over the same, the wife left the matrimonial home and resided in her parental home. Later, the husband came back and attempted to take the wife to Singapore but due to her pregnancy, she continued residing in India. A girl child was born to the couple thereafter.

The husband argued that the wife had neither invited him or his parents for the baby shower function and had even demanded return of 18 sovereigns of gold given at the time of marriage. The husband also argued that the wife had filed case against them and had thus committed mental cruelty and desertion. He thus sought for dissolution of marriage.

The wife, on the other hand, submitted that neither the husband nor the in-laws were taking care of her or the child and she had to file a maintenance case for getting maintenance amount. The wife submitted that even after informing him about the birth of the child, the husband did not take care of them and she continued to take care of the child, though with much difficulty.

The court noted that though the husband had argued that his family was not invited for the baby shower, there was no material to show that such a function was actually conducted. The court also took note of the wife's stand that such a function was never conducted.

The court also noted that the wife had filed an application seeking maintenance which would show that she was being deserted by the husband. The court remarked that after the marriage, the husband should have recognised the wife and forwarded a portion of money to her instead of sending it all to his mother. The court added that after failing in his obligation, the husband could not blame the wife for her actions.

“It is an admitted fact that surplus income was sent home, but was not sent to the respondent but to his mother. This was a source of grievance for the respondent herein. The appellant should have recognised her status as a wife and should have atleast forwarded a portion of the surplus amount to her rather than sending the entire amount to his mother. After marriage, the appellant was expected to maintain a separate household for the respondent wife. Having failed to do so, the appellant cannot hide his own fault and put the blame on the respondent for any decision taken by her,” the court said.

Thus, considering the overall facts, the court observed that the wife's actions were justified and the incidents were only scratches in the marital life. Noting that the husband, taking advantage of his own fault was seeking dissolution of marriage, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. K. Ravi Anantha Padmanaban for Mr. B. Thirumalai

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. T. Balaji Thirumoorthy

Case Title: P v S

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 205

Case No: CMA No. 706 of 2023