While taking the most serious objection to the wife threatening to commit suicide and filing false harassment case against the husband, the Madras High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled ABC vs XYZ in C.M.S.A.(MD)Nos.27 and 28 of 2015 and cited in 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 363 that was reserved on 25.07.2024 and then finally pronounced on 23.09.2024 has minced just no words to say in no uncertain terms that a wife threatening to commit suicide would amount to cruelty. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mrs Justice S Srimathy noted that in the case, the husband had written letters to his mother, within 8 months of marriage indicating his deepest agony and anguish wherein he had clearly revealed that the wife was threatening to commit suicide. The High Court noted that there was an element of mental cruelty present in the case.

By the way, the Bench also noted that the wife had filed false dowry harassment case against the husband and his family which had greatly tarnished the family image of the husband. It was also noted by the Bench that the wife had used the false dowry harassment case as a tool to threaten the husband which amounted to cruelty. Further, the Bench found that the husband was fighting for divorce for last 17 years and was suffering at the hands of the wife and her family and so deemed it fit to allow his appeal and grant divorce! Very rightly so!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mrs Justice S Srimathy sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
Both the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals are filed by the husband against the common judgement and decree. Hence, both the cases were taken up together and a common judgment is passed.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 that:
The brief facts as stated by the husband is that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 16.05.2004 at Dindigul as per their customs and rituals. Since both of them are relatives, the wife’s parents had given various jewels and other gifts to the wife, except dowry. After the marriage both husband and wife were residing in Pondicherry.

The husband was serving as Medical Referee in ESI Corporation and initially the wife was staying as homemaker but later on was serving as Doctor in Science Forum for Rs.10,000/- as salary. The disputes started immediately after marriage. The wife never allowed the husband’s relatives to their home, further the wife demanded the husband to listen to her, imposed condition that the husband should not talk to his parents and should never have any connection with his family.

If not, threatened the husband that she would commit suicide or file false dowry case against the husband’s entire family through her father and brother who are Advocates in High Court. Since the parents of the husband are heart patient, the husband was tolerating all the insults meted out by the wife. But the insults were increasing day-by-day. When the husband’s sister had invited the couples for wedding feast, but the wife refused to attend the same, but the husband was patiently handling the issues. In the meanwhile, the couples had a daughter namely Neha.

When the first birthday celebrations of the daughter were planned on 24.03.2005, again there was fight between the couples, wherein the husband’s mother alone had come to attend the function, but the wife had objected for the husband’s mother participating in the function, which ended in attempting suicide by the wife and she was admitted in Jipmer hospital and treated her. The brother of the wife called the husband over phone and insisted to take the wife home and directed the husband should handle the wife properly otherwise he should face dire consequences of facing false dowry case.

The other allegations are that the wife did not allow the husband to be with the daughter. Further the wife was insisting to live a luxurious life, since the husband was serving as a doctor in ESI Corporation with meagre salary, the wife insisted to earn more and started comparing with one of her brothers, who was earning more than 1½ lakhs in information technology. Also compared with one Ganesan who was working as radiologists and insisted to do radiology as post-graduation course instead of ENT.

And also stated if she had married the said Ganesan she would have lived a better life. The wife never carried on her duties as wife. Further when the husband’s mother was admitted in Hospital for heart treatment the wife did not allow the husband to visit his mother, threatened if visited his mother she will prefer a dowry harassment complaint against the husband, his parents, sisters-in-law and also commit suicide.

Also stated after marrying the petitioner she is living as poor and insulted the husband quite often. The husband transferred from Pondicherry to Madurai on 05.02.2007 and she complained about the smaller house and insisted to take a bigger house. Also fixed a house for Rs 3500 rent through her father, but when the husband refused to move to this Rs 3500/- rented house, she stated she cannot live in a low-class house and fought with the husband.

On 20.02.2007 her father visited the house and the wife took her daughter and left the home along with her father. Thereafter the wife visited the husband’s work place at ESI hospital and picked up quarrel and disturbed him during duty hours, again insisted to live in the house rented for Rs 3500 and refused to live in a house fixed by the husband. When there was continuous cruelty, the husband issued lawyer notice dated 28.02.2007 for divorce.

On the same day, the brother of the wife along with seven or eight persons visited the husband’s parents’ house at Tirunelveli at 2 pm insulted and threatened them with dire consequences, the parents fearing them had locked the house from inside and several hours they could not come out of the house. Thereafter, the mother had preferred police complaint to Perumalpuram Police Station and Palayamkottai All Women Police Station. The husband had preferred telegram on 01.03.2007 to Director General of Police, Chennai, Commissioner of Police, Madurai, Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli and Superintendent of Police, Dindigul stating his parents were illegally detained and kept them under house arrest by the wife’s brother along with goondas and threatened them that they would not let them go out, until their son comes home or else to face the dire consequences.

Already the husband’s parents were heart patient, after the above incident they were forced to live along with their daughter in the daughter’s place. After the above incident, the wife preferred police complaint alleging the husband and his family are demanding dowry. Based on the complaint the concerned police officials had summoned the husband and his family for the enquiry and also the police had visited the husband’s workplace in order to search the husband, thereby the wife and their family did not allow the husband to work peacefully. In the meanwhile, the wife’s brother along with the 2 or 3 persons threatened to the petitioner and demanded signature in the blank papers.

The husband and their entire family including the married sisters were forced to file anticipatory bail application before the High Court. In the meanwhile, the husband returned all the articles of the wife to her parents’ house. The gold jewels were always with the wife and the same is with her. All these acts of the wife made the petitioner to decide that hereafter they cannot live together and filed the petition for divorce.

Briefly stated, the Bench notes in para 16 that:
Infact, after filing of divorce petition, the threat to the husband was continuing. The husband had submitted a complaint dated 22.06.2007 to various authorities alleging that the wife’s brother along with some persons tried to kidnap the husband and the husband had also preferred criminal complaint through proper channel. The complaints preferred to various authorities are marked as Ex.P31.

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 17 that:
However the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the wife submitted that the criminal cases between the parties were compromised by the parties and the same cannot be cited after compromise. But the fact remains that the wife and her family had threatened and humiliated the husband and his family. Especially the aforesaid letter would clearly indicate that the husband was not allowed to carry on his Central Government Service and the husband was always under fear and was seeking the help of police or his office persons and others to escape from the threat given from the wife side.

Most significantly, the Bench mandates in para 18 postulating that:
Thus, when the wife had attempted to commit suicide, when there is repeated threat to commit suicide, when the wife had visited the workplace and insulted the husband, when the husband was threatened by the wife’s brother during his official duty, when the dowry harassment case was filed against the parents, sisters and their husbands and when the said dowry harassment case was published in the newspapers along with the names of the entire family, especially the name of the sisters and their husbands’ names were published, then the same would amount to mental cruelty caused to the husband by the wife. The above narration of events would indicate that the husband is suffering in the hands of the wife and no longer the husband can carry on such suffering. The exhibits 1 to 48 marked on the side of husband would indicate the threat, humiliation, highhandedness of the wife and her relatives. In short, the husband had reached a stage that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with his wife. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the husband is entitled for the relief of divorce.

Adding more to it, the Bench then further adds in para 19 stating that, Further, in the present case the husband had stated right from the day of marriage the wife was fighting with him which is evident from his letter written to his mother. The parties had lived hardly for three years and not a single day was happy for the parties. The parties were estranged from 2007 onwards and for more than 17 years they are living separately. The breakdown of marriage has never been reconciled by the parties leading to the inference that it has reached beyond return. The long, continued separation has made the martial bond an empty shell. In such circumstances, divorce in the only relief as held in Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511.

While rebutting the contentions of the wife, the Bench propounds in para 20 holding that:
At this juncture, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the wife stated that if divorce is granted it would affect the parties since the parties are in their middle age. Especially the wife in her middle age ought to face the society with a stigma as divorced women and the same would affect the upbringing of their daughter. However, the said submission cannot be entertained in the present case, since the husband had already suffered in the hands of the wife and her family.

Finally and fairly, the Bench then concludes by holding decisively in para 21 that:
For the reasons stated supra, the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant/husband are answered in favour of the husband and the civil miscellaneous second appeals are allowed. The judgment and decree passed by both the Courts in both the cases are set aside. The marriage between the appellant/husband and respondent/wife is hereby dissolved. No costs.

In conclusion, one really wonders what is stopping Centre from inserting necessary safeguards in our penal laws to ensure that a woman does not get away easily after levelling most serious charges against her husband and that too without any prima facie basis? She must be made to pay heavy damages and also be made to undergo jail term so that this most brazen, blind, brutal and baseless abuse of penal laws is checked, combated and crushed completely at the earliest! This definitely brooks no more delay now any longer!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh