Madras High Court Grants Divorce To Husband After Wife Arranged Daughter's Marriage Without Informing Him

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar held that as a parent, the husband would have undergone extreme mental agony, pain, and suffering, which could never be compensated.

The court also noted that the husband's later conduct, of preventing the wife from entering the house, was also due to the mental scar that he had suffered.

“After the marriage is performed, the appellant [husband] can never take any step. It is only natural that this aspect has agitated him since the husband of the daughter was a divorcee earlier and that marriage had broken down with much animosity and as a matter of fact, as against the brother of the respondent [wife], police complaint had been lodged and he had also been taken into custody. At that particular point of time when the marriage of the daughter had occurred, as a parent he would have undergone extreme mental agony, pain and suffering which can never be compensated,” the court noted.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the husband against the Family Court's order refusing to grant him a divorce and allowing the wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights.

The husband submitted that the wedding was solemnised in 1997 and two children were born out of the marriage – a daughter and son. It was submitted that from the date of marriage, the wife was demanding various facilities and was always concentrating on the husband's income and wealth.

The husband submitted that on June 19, 2017, the wife left the matrimonial home along with the daughter and returned alone a week later. When questioned, the wife informed that the daughter had married the wife's brother in Bangalore. The husband submitted that the incident was a triggering point for serious differences between the couple, which ultimately led to the filing of the divorce case.

The wife, on the other hand, disputed all the allegations. She submitted that he had never abused the husband or spoken disparagingly about him. She submitted that her daughter had developed a relationship with the maternal uncle and thus, in the interest of both parties, she had gotten them married. The wife submitted that after she came back from Bangalore, the husband prevented her from entering the matrimonial home which led her to lodge a police complaint. The wife also argued that the husband never bothered to find the whereabouts of the daughter. However, since she wanted to live with her husband, she had filed the plea for restitution of conjugal rights.

The court noted that the fact regarding the marriage of the 18-year-old daughter to the 32-year-old uncle was not disputed. The court also noted that the fact that the husband was not informed about the wedding was also not disputed. The court remarked that if the wife had the intention to marry the daughter to her brother, it would have been appropriate for her to inform the husband about the same.

Though the wife had argued that the daughter was in a relationship with the uncle, the court noted that the uncle had not visited the family since 2013 and thus, there was no possibility of a relationship. The court thus concluded that the wife had taken an active part in marrying off the daughter to the uncle, without informing the husband.

The court also noted that the wife had spoken disparagingly about the husband and had even lodged a complaint against him before his superior officers and with the police, which would've caused him mental agony.

Thus, considering all the factors, the court was inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Family Court.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. N. Mariappan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.D.Nellaiappan

Case Title: S v K

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 215

Case No: CMA Nos. 1155 & 1156 of 2024