Defamatory Complaints Made By Spouse To Employer Or Superiors Can Constitute Mental Cruelty To Grant Divorce: Madras High Court
The Court held that repeated allegations made by a spouse to the other spouse’s superiors regarding alleged illicit relationships, without proof, amounted to mental cruelty and observed that prolonged separation coupled with continuous matrimonial discord would itself amount to cruelty.
The Madras High Court has held that when a spouse makes defamatory complaints against the other spouse to his or her superiors, such conduct constitutes mental cruelty and provides sufficient legal justification for the grant of divorce.
The Court reiterated that unsubstantiated allegations affecting the reputation and dignity of a spouse, particularly before employers or superior authorities, could irreparably damage matrimonial ties and amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court was hearing a Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed by a wife challenging concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court granting divorce in favour of the husband on grounds of cruelty.
A Bench of Justice P. Vadamalai, relying on the Apex Court’s ruling in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021), observed: “From the above ruling, it is very clear that when a spouse makes defamatory complaints about the other spouse to his/her superiors, it is enough justification for seeking divorce legally.”
Appellant/Wife was represented by Advocate S. Ramesh Ramiah, and Advocate M.P. Senthil appeared for Respondent/Husband.
Background
The parties were married according to Hindu rites and customs and had two children out of wedlock. The husband, a former Army personnel, sought divorce on grounds of cruelty, desertion and alleged conversion of religion by the wife.
According to the husband, the wife repeatedly accused him of maintaining illicit relationships with several women and made such allegations publicly as well as before his superior officers in the Army. The husband further alleged that the wife lodged criminal complaints against him and initiated several litigations, causing mental agony and humiliation.
The wife, on the other hand, alleged that the husband indeed had relationships with other women and that she had complained to the Army authorities only after being harassed by him. She also alleged that her husband assaulted her and was convicted in criminal proceedings arising out of those incidents.
The Trial Court granted a decree of divorce, which was subsequently affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the wife approached the High Court in a second appeal.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the evidence adduced before the courts below and noted that the wife had admitted in her evidence that she had sent complaints to the Army's higher officials alleging illicit relationships on the part of the husband.
The Court observed: “It is a settled position of law that admissions are the best evidence and do not require any documentary evidence.”
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021), the High Court reiterated that defamatory complaints made by one spouse to the other spouse’s employer or superior authorities, adversely affecting career and reputation, would amount to mental cruelty.
The Bench extracted the Supreme Court’s observation: “The explanation of the wife that she made those complaints in order to protect the matrimonial ties would not in our view, justify the persistent effort made by her to undermine the dignity and reputation of the appellant.”
The Court rejected the wife’s contention that the alleged acts had been condoned since the parties had continued to live together after the complaints were made. The Court observed that subsequent disputes and criminal proceedings demonstrated continuation of allegations and matrimonial discord.
The High Court also considered the issue of removal of “Thali” by the wife and relied upon earlier Division Bench judgments holding that removal of Thali during the lifetime of the husband carried social and matrimonial significance capable of constituting mental cruelty.
The Bench observed: “It is known fact that no Hindu married woman would remove the ‘Thali’ at any point of time during the lifetime of her husband.”
The Court further held: “The removal of ‘Thali’ by the petitioner/wife can be said to be an act, which reflected Mental Cruelty of highest order as it could have caused agony and hurt the sentiments of the respondent.”
The High Court additionally took note of the admitted position that the parties had been living separately since 1996 and that no effort had been made by the wife to seek restitution of conjugal rights or reunion.
Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023), the Court observed that prolonged separation and absence of cohabitation resulting in a complete breakdown of marital bonds could itself amount to mental cruelty.
The Bench observed: “Very long separate living without the reason or consent of the other spouse can also constitute mental cruelty to the other spouse.”
The Court clarified that although an irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not an independent statutory ground available to High Courts for the grant of divorce, the surrounding circumstances of prolonged separation could still be considered while adjudicating cruelty.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court held that the husband had successfully established mental cruelty on the part of the wife through repeated defamatory complaints, continuous allegations regarding illicit relationships, removal of the Thali and prolonged separation extending over three decades.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal and affirmed the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, granting divorce to the husband.
Cause Title: Valliammal v. A. Chelladurai (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:1807)