‘Sending money only to mother, ignoring wife’: Why Madras High Court refused a husband’s divorce petition

The Madras High Court has refused to grant divorce to a husband who accused his wife of cruelty and desertion after she stayed at her parental home during pregnancy and after childbirth, holding that the facts on record showed neglect on the husband’s part rather than abandonment by the wife. The Court observed that a husband working abroad cannot ignore his responsibility towards his wife and child, continue sending money only to his mother, and later accuse the wife of deserting the matrimonial home.A Division Bench comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Rajasekar dismissed the husband’s appeal against a Family Court judgment which had rejected his petition for divorce under Sections 13(1) (i-a) and 13(1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.Marriage and Dispute Between the PartiesThe parties got married on 30.01.2012. According to the husband, 18 sovereigns of jewellery were given at the time of marriage. Around seven months later, he left for Singapore to work as a construction labourer.The husband claimed that while working abroad he regularly sent money home. However, it was admitted that the money was being sent to his mother and not directly to the respondent-wife.According to him, this became the source of friction between the parties. He claimed that the wife was upset because he had not transferred money to her and therefore left the matrimonial home to stay with her parents.The husband further claimed that he had arranged a passport for the respondent so that she could join him in Singapore, but by then she had conceived and could not travel. A girl child was born on 06.01.2015.He also claimed that neither he nor his parents were invited to the baby shower ceremony or later functions connected with the child and that they were not permitted to see the child. On these allegations, he approached the Family Court seeking dissolution of 63marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.Wife Says She Was Forced to Raise Child AloneThe respondent-wife denied the claims and stated that after marriage the parties initially lived as a joint family. Even after the husband moved to Singapore, she continued residing with her in-laws at Madurai.According to her, the pregnancy was confirmed in May 2014 and she later gave birth to a child in January 2015. She stated that despite being informed about the delivery, neither the husband nor his family properly cared for her or the child.The wife also pointed out that she had to initiate maintenance proceedings because no financial support was being provided to her. She stated that she had been taking care of the child on her own with great difficulty.She also clarified that she had complained to the police to get her certificates and to safeguard her rights and rights of the child. She said that there is no basis for the dissolution of marriage as she did not desert the husband.Family Court Rejects Divorce PleaAfter recording evidence from both sides, the Family Court dismissed the husband’s petition.The Family Court found that the wife had sufficient justification for staying with her parents during pregnancy and after childbirth. It also noted that the husband had continued sending money only to his mother even after marriage, which understandably caused grievance to the wife.The Family Court ultimately concluded that neither cruelty nor desertion had been proved.The husband then challenged that decision before the High Court.Arguments Before the High CourtBefore the High Court, the husband argued that the parties had been living separately for almost a decade and that the marriage had completely broken down. He also argued that the wife had never filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and therefore had no intention of resuming matrimonial life.It was also argued that the husband’s family had intentionally been excluded from ceremonies relating to the child and that they had not even been allowed to see the child. The husband further referred to his health issues and claimed that he was no longer in stable employment after losing his job in Singapore.The wife, on the other hand, argued that there was no evidence to show that any formal baby shower ceremony had actually taken place. She maintained that the husband had failed to support her financially and had effectively left her to manage the child’s upbringing alone.High Court Finds Fault with Husband’s ConductThe High Court agreed with the reasoning of the Family Court and observed that the husband had failed to discharge his responsibilities towards his wife.The Bench noted that although the husband was earning abroad, he continued sending money only to his mother and not to the respondent-wife.In one of the significant observations in the judgment, the Court stated:“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.”The Court further observed that after marriage, the husband was expected to maintain a separate household for his wife and could not shift blame onto her for decisions taken during pregnancy and childbirth.Rejecting the claims of desertion, the Court held that the wife’s stay at her parental home during pregnancy and after delivery was entirely natural and justified.The Bench observed:“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 High Court also took note of an allegation made by the husband that the respondent was in close contact with another man.The Court found that the allegation was completely unsupported by evidence. No name, phone number, or particulars of the alleged individual had been disclosed either in pleadings or evidence.The Bench observed that making such allegations against a woman who had recently delivered a child would naturally cause emotional pain and distress.The Court remarked:“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.”According to the Court, this conduct on the husband’s part itself explained why the wife found it difficult to reconcile.“Stray Incidents Are Only Scratches in Marital Life”While refusing to interfere with the Family Court judgment, the High Court emphasized that ordinary disagreements and isolated incidents in matrimonial life cannot automatically become grounds for divorce.The Court said:“Stray incident cannot be a ground of dissolution of marriage. They are only scratches in the marital life.”The Court ultimately held that the husband was attempting to take advantage of circumstances created largely by his own conduct.The Madras High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the Family Court’s refusal to grant divorce, holding that the wife’s stay at her parental home during pregnancy and after childbirth did not amount to desertion, that allegations of cruelty were unsupported by evidence, and that the husband, despite working abroad, failed to properly support his wife and child while continuing to send money only to his mother.The Court further held that isolated disagreements and ordinary matrimonial discord could not be treated as sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)