Wife Secretly Marrying Off Daughter Without Informing Father Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Grants Divorce To Husband
The Court held that conducting the marriage of a daughter surreptitiously, without informing the father and despite anticipating his objections, caused irreparable mental agony amounting to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Madras High Court has granted divorce to a husband holding that the wife caused mental cruelty by secretly arranging the marriage of their daughter, immediately after she attained majority, to the wife’s own divorced brother without informing the husband.
The Court observed that the husband, as a father, suffered extreme mental agony upon discovering that his daughter had been married away without his knowledge to a person substantially older and already divorced.
The Court was hearing appeals challenging a Family Court order dismissing the husband’s petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and allowing the wife’s plea for restitution of conjugal rights.
A Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Rajasekar observed: “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 Bench further observed: “All these evidence point out that the marriage had been actually conducted deliberately by the respondent without informing the appellant and had caused serious mental agony to the appellant herein.”
Advocate N. Mariappan appeared for the husband. Advocate D. Nellaiappan appeared for the wife.
Background
The parties were married in 1997 through an arranged marriage and had two children. The husband, employed as an Assistant Engineer in the Greater Chennai Corporation, alleged that the wife continuously humiliated him and eventually caused severe mental cruelty by secretly arranging the marriage of their daughter.
According to the husband, the wife left the matrimonial home with their daughter and returned after about a week, informing him that the daughter had been married in Bengaluru to the wife’s own brother, who was a divorcee.
The husband contended that he had not been informed about the marriage, had not consented to it and was deliberately excluded from the ceremony. He further alleged that the wife’s brother had previously faced police complaints arising out of his earlier marriage.
The wife denied allegations of cruelty and claimed that the daughter had developed a relationship with her brother and that the marriage had been conducted in the interest of both parties. She sought restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court.
The Family Court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition and allowed the wife’s plea for restitution of conjugal rights, leading to the present appeals.
Court’s Observation
The High Court found that the marriage of the daughter was admittedly conducted without informing the husband and that the wife had played a central role in arranging the marriage.
The Court observed that there was no justification for conducting such an important event in the life of a daughter in a secretive manner while completely excluding the father.
The Bench observed: “There is no reason why the respondent had acted surreptitiously in a very important event in the life of a daughter and also of a father.”
The Court further noted that the daughter had only recently attained majority and had been married to a person aged about 32 years who was already divorced.
The Bench held that the wife deliberately avoided informing the husband because she anticipated objections from him regarding the marriage.
The Court observed: “It is only because she knew that the appellant might raise objections, she deliberately did not inform about the marriage to the appellant and had surreptitiously married away their daughter.”
The High Court also took note of the son’s testimony corroborating that the daughter had been married in Bengaluru without informing anyone in the family.
Apart from the marriage issue, the Court found that the wife had lodged complaints with police authorities and the husband’s superior officers and had broken open the flat and removed documents and belongings, all of which cumulatively caused serious mental cruelty.
Referring to Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the Court reiterated that sustained conduct causing deep mental pain and making cohabitation intolerable constitutes mental cruelty under matrimonial law.
The Bench held that the cumulative conduct of the wife had caused such mental agony and suffering that continuation of marital life had become impossible for the husband.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court held that the Family Court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and the impact of the wife’s conduct on the husband.
The Court concluded that secretly arranging the marriage of the daughter without informing the father, coupled with subsequent acts including complaints to police and superior officers, amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, the Family Court’s orders were set aside and divorce was granted in favour of the husband.
Cause Title: G. Sridhar v. S. Komala Kumari