Marriage news: The Madras High Court has upheld the divorce granted to a retired Army man, ending his 49-year-old marriage and held that repeated allegations of extramarital affairs made by his estranged wife to his military superiors, and removing ‘Thali’ or mangalsutra, besides the nearly three-decade separation period constituted mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Justice P Vadamalai was hearing an appeal filed by an estranged wife against her husband, a former Indian Army officer, challenging the trial court verdict, which had granted and confirmed a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.

“It is very clear that the respondent/wife adopted Christianity as her daughter’s name and her marriage to a Christian is revealed…and hence, the allegation of conversion of religion by the respondent/wife cannot be thrown away upon consideration of the entire evidence on record. This Court holds that the removal of Thali would reflect mental cruelty,” the court said on June 1.

One of the most striking aspects of the judgment relates to the wife’s admission that she had removed her thali and was no longer wearing gold ornaments.

The court relied on earlier decisions of the Madras High Court that discussed the cultural and emotional significance of the thali in Hindu marriages.

Quoting a division bench judgment, Justice Vadamalai noted, “It is known fact that no Hindu married woman would remove the ‘Thali’ at any point of time during the lifetime of her husband. ‘Thali’ around the neck of a wife is a sacred thing which symbolises the continuance of married life and it is removed only after the death of Husband. Therefore, 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 hurted the sentiments of the respondent.”

The court said the wife’s own evidence showed that she had removed the thali, and this conduct was relevant while assessing mental cruelty.

The court also noted that the parties had been living separately since the mid-1990s.

The wife admitted during her evidence that she had been living apart from her husband since 1996.

The court further observed that she had not initiated any proceedings seeking restitution of conjugal rights or reunion.

While acknowledging that the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not an independent statutory ground for divorce available to high courts, Justice Vadamalai held that prolonged separation could be considered while assessing whether one spouse had subjected the other to mental cruelty.

Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court observed that a marriage which has existed only on paper for decades and is accompanied by bitterness and litigation can itself become a source of cruelty.

Finding no error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the High Court dismissed the wife’s appeal and confirmed the divorce decree.

“The concurrent finding of the Courts below does not warrant interference by way of this appeal,” the court held while affirming the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court.