Divorce granted to husband; Court says defamatory claims without proof can cause lasting stigma
The Madras High Court has held that making unsubstantiated sexual harassment allegations against one’s husband and father-in-law amounts to mental cruelty, forming a valid ground for divorce.
A Division Bench of Justices J Nisha Banu and R Sakthivel delivered this ruling while allowing a man’s appeal to dissolve his marriage, citing the psychological trauma he faced due to his wife’s baseless accusations.
The appellant-husband had told the Court that his wife filed a police complaint alleging he and his father were perverts who had sexually harassed her. However, the complaint was later withdrawn after he allegedly promised to reunite with her—a promise he did not fulfil. Despite this, the wife chose not to reopen the case.
The Court observed that the failure to pursue or prove such serious allegations amounted to defamation, which, in turn, constituted mental cruelty.
“The averments made in Ex-R.5 (complaint) are of such nature that unless proved, they amount to defamation, which in turn constitutes mental cruelty,” the Court held.
“Unsubstantiated or uncorroborated defamatory averments… cause stigma and mental agony to the petitioner as well as his family, and in the facts and circumstances of this case amounts to cruelty.”
The Court further remarked that it was understandable why the husband was unwilling to continue marital life after such grave and derogatory claims.
“His apprehensions about continuing the marital life with the respondent, even after the defamatory and derogatory allegations of sexual nature against him and his father, cannot be brushed aside simply.”
According to the appellant, his wife had stayed with him for only 51 days during the first two years of marriage and spent the rest at her parental home. He also accused her of being abusive and excessively quarrelsome. Following his divorce petition in 2017, the wife filed a sexual harassment complaint, which was later withdrawn.
In her defense, the wife stated that she withdrew the complaint because the husband promised to reconcile. When he didn’t return, she approached the family court with a plea for restitution of conjugal rights, which was allowed in 2023.
The High Court, however, set aside that order, observing that eight years of estrangement with no improvement showed that the marital relationship had irretrievably broken down.
While granting the divorce, the Court maintained that the wife’s and child’s maintenance rights would remain intact.
“Though divorce is granted in favour of the (husband), maintenance rights of the respondent (wife) shall remain unaffected,” the Court concluded in its June 4 ruling.
The judgment highlights the serious consequences of making false or unverified allegations in matrimonial disputes and reinforces the principle that such actions can have lasting mental and social repercussions.
