Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 986

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. VADAMALAI, J.
Valliammal, W/o. Chelladurai – Appellant
Versus
A. Chelladurai, S/o. Late. Arunachala Konar - Respondent
C.M.S.A(MD)No.44 of 2021
Decided On : 01-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S. Ramesh @ Ramiah
For the Respondent: Mr. M.P. Senthil for Mr. A. Mohamed Haneef.

Persistent, unproven, defamatory accusations against a spouse to professional superiors causing reputational damage constitutes mental cruelty. When combined with long-term separation and the symbolic abandonment of the marital bond, it establishes sufficient grounds for the dissolution of marriage under the relevant matrimonial statutes.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(ia) and 23(1) - Divorce - Mental cruelty - Allegations of extra-marital affairs made through defamatory letters to official superiors - Whether such conduct constitutes mental cruelty - Appellate court confirming concurrent findings of fact - Conduct of a spouse causing reputational damage to the other before professional superiors and the voluntary abandonment of symbols representing the marital bond constitute mental cruelty of the highest order. (Paras 11, 14, 18, 20, 22)

(B) Appeal - Scope - Second Appeal - Jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact is limited unless there is clear perversity or illegality in the reasoning of the courts below. (Para 23)

Facts of the case:
The parties were involved in a marriage for several decades, marked by long periods of separation. The petitioner initiated proceedings for dissolution of marriage, alleging mental cruelty arising from continuous, unproven defamatory accusations made to the petitioner's professional superiors, the initiation of aggressive criminal litigation, and the abandonment of traditional marriage symbols. The lower courts upheld the request for divorce, citing the respondent's conduct as constituting mental cruelty.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the respondent’s persistent defamatory communications sent to professional superiors, which resulted in adverse impact on career and reputation, along with the subsequent symbolic rejection of the marriage, established a pattern of cruelty. The court also held that long-term separation and absence of cohabitation, when characterized by bitterness, effectively constitute mental cruelty.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the trial court correctly identified the acts of the spouse as mental cruelty, whether the allegations were deemed condoned by subsequent reconciliatory efforts, and whether the court could grant a decree of divorce in the absence of a specific statutory provision for breakdown of marriage.

Ratio Decidendi: Making persistent and unproven defamatory allegations to a spouse’s professional superiors, which jeopardizes their career standing and reputation, constitutes sufficient legal ground for mental cruelty. Furthermore, the symbolic rejection of marital status provides additional evidence of the breakdown of the emotional bond, justifying the dissolution of the marriage.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and statement of facts regarding matrimonial discord. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. contentions regarding condonation of delay, burden of proof on cruelty, and limits of judicial power. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. defamatory complaints and removal of thali constitute mental cruelty. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. long-term separation without effort for restitution constitutes mental cruelty warranting divorce. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

P. VADAMALAI, J.

1.This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 04.09.2019 passed in C.M.A.No.53 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Tenkasi, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 04.12.2017 passed in H.M.O.P.No.157 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi.

2.The appellant is the respondent/wife in H.M.O.P.No.157 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as petitioner and respondent in H.M.O.P.No.157 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi.

4. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner (Husband)

The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 30.08.1977 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with a son, Premkumar (age 36) and a daughter, Smitha (age 33). From the very beginning of marriage, upon suspicion, the respondent frequently quarreled with the petitioner as if he had illegal contacts with several women and made an insult in the presence of the general public. The petitioner was working in the Army, and the respondent wrote a letter to higher officials on 19.09.1989 mentioning abusive versions against the petitioner. The respondent, through her son, lodged a police complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.333 of 1997 by Alangulam Police Station, and the case was taken on cognizance in C.C.No.388 of 1998 by the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Tenkasi. In that case, the petitioner was convicted for 7 years and on appeal, the sentence was reduced. Thereafter, the petitioner has been living separately. In order to grab the self-acquired properties of the petitioner, the respondent created concocted documents, for which a criminal case in C.C.No.347 of 2009 is pending against the respondent. The respondent converted to Christianity and adopted Christian rites, and thereby causing mental agony to the petitioner. By these acts, the respondent caused mental cruelty and she deserted the petitioner. There is no possibility of reunion. Hence, the petitioner has filed a petition in HMOP.No.157 of 2014 against the respondent seeking divorce U/s.13(1)(ia)(ib), (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

5. Brief facts of the case of the respondent (Wife)

The petitioner was working in the Indian Army at Allahabad. After marriage, the petitioner took the respondent to Allahabad, where she became pregnant. The respondent came to her parental home for delivery. The petitioner used to visit her parental home, where he developed an illegal contact with one girl, Muthukutti. On enquiry, the petitioner admitted the said relationship even before marriage, however, the respondent continued matrimonial life. Their matrimonial life continued on good terms till 1985. Then, the petitioner harassed the respondent to give her sister in marriage to him. So, the respondent wrote a letter to the higher officials of the petitioner. The petitioner retired in 1991 and started living with the respondent at their hometown, Sivalarkulam. Thereafter, he developed illegal intimacy with one Maragatham. While questioning the same, on 02.12.1996, the petitioner confined the respondent and her children inside the house and set it on fire. So, the respondent gave a complaint before the Alangulam police station. Again, the petitioner had illegal contact with another woman, Poornam and