2026:MHC:2123C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 17.04.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 15.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024

and

C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

C.M.A.(MD).No.696 of 2024

S.Naveen ... Appellant

Vs.

M.Nitharshani ...Respondent

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 1991) of Family

Courts Act, 1984 r/w Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act,to set aside the fair

and decreetal order dated 29.01.2024 made in H.M.O.P.No.136 of 2019 on the

file of the Family Court, Thanjavur and allow the same.

For Appellant : Mr.MAjmal Khan

Senior Advocate for

: Mr.M.Mohammed Ibram Saibu

For Respondents : Mr.H.Laxmi Shankar for

Mr.A.Senthil Kumar

1/58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

C.M.A.(MD).No.697 of 2024

S.Naveen ... Appellant

Vs.

M.Nitharshani ...Respondent

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 1991) of Family

Courts Act, 1984 to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.01.2024

made in H.M.O.P.No.262 of 2023 (Old No: I.A.No.2 of 2022) on the file of the

Family Court, Thanjavur and allow the same.

For Appellant : Mr.MAjmal Khan

Senior Advocate for

: Mr.M.Mohammed Ibram Saibu

For Respondents : Mr.H.Laxmi Shankar for

Mr.A.Senthil Kumar

C.R.P.(MD).No.2086 of 2024

S.Naveen ... Appellant

Vs.

M.Nitharshani ...Respondent

PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition has filed under Article 227 of Constitution

of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.01.2024 made in

I.A.No.17 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.136 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court,

Thanjavur.

2/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

For Petitioner : Mr.MAjmal Khan

Senior Advocate for

: Mr.M.Mohammed Ibram Saibu

For Respondents : Mr.H.Laxmi Shankar for

Mr.A.Senthil Kumar

C.R.P.(MD).No.2029 of 2024

S.Naveen ... Appellant

Vs.

M.Nitharshani ...Respondent

PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition has filed under Article 227 of Constitution

of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 17.05.2023 made in

I.A.No.1 of 2022 in H.M.O.P.No.136 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court,

Thanjavur.

For Petitioner : Mr.MAjmal Khan

Senior Advocate for

: Mr.M.Mohammed Ibram Saibu

For Respondents : Mr.H.Laxmi Shankar for

Mr.A.Senthil Kumar

C.R.P.(MD).No.3231 of 2023

M.Nitharshani ... Appellant

Vs.

S.Naveen ...Respondent

3/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition has filed under Article 227 of Constitution

of India, to set aside the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the Family Court,

Thanjavur in I.A.No.01 of 2022 in H.M.O.P.No.136 of 2019.

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Laxmi Shankar for

Mr.A.Senthil Kumar

For Respondents : Mr.MAjmal Khan

Senior Advocate for

: Mr.M.Mohammed Ibram Saibu

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN ,J.)

Prelude:

Contemporary Indian society is increasingly witnessing the agony of

marital discord, intolerance, and the breakdown of matrimonial relationships.

The disintegration of concept of the nuclear family, there is considerable

constraint in the smooth sailing of matrimonial life in the fast moving

competitive world and same would cause unmeasurable stress in the

matrimonial life of every spouse. Therefore, there is no way of sublimation of

stress in their day to day life of the spouses. In result, every matrimonial life

accumulated with mental stress resulting into psychiatric problem and

psychological misunderstanding.

4/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

1.1. Human affection possesses a therapeutic value beyond ordinary

medicine. After marriage, the affectionate embrace, care, kisses, emotional

closeness, and intimate relationship shared between husband and wife are

natural expressions of human emotion that provide deep mental peace and

vitality in life. Within the sacred privacy of matrimony, the tender affection

between spouses, the warmth of companionship, the reassuring touch, the

loving embrace, and the intimacy shared between them are not acts of mere

physicality; they are often the language of emotional healing, the medicine of

the mind, and the solace of the human spirit. Such companionship itself

becomes life-preserving support for a person struggling with emotional despair

or psychological suffering. In most of situations, a caring marital relationship

itself becomes an emotional sanctuary for a person suffering from depression,

anxiety, emotional trauma, or mental illness. Where ever Marriage

Relationships are filled with love and affection reduce mental stress and, in

many instances, act as a healing remedy for emotional pain and mental illness

and such affection itself becomes a life-saving source of hope and strength.

Therefore, in the contemporary understanding of matrimonial relationships,

Psychiatric science recognises that the loving embrace between spouses, the

reassuring touch, the exchange of affection, and the emotional intimacy shared

in married life often function as powerful emotional remedies that reduce

anxiety, relieve psychological stress, and restore emotional equilibrium in a

5/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

distressed mind. Accordingly, This Court is inclined to view marriage in the

light of modern psychiatric and psychological understanding as an intimate

emotional partnership in which affection, companionship, emotional security,

physical closeness, and mutual support constitute the very foundation of mental

well-being and emotional stability.

1.2.This court is constrained to discuss the concept of marriage from the

point of view of the psychologist. In view of increasing number of matrimonial

disputes founded on allegation of mental illness, often without proper

understanding of the challenges involved or the measures available to alleviate

mental distress in today's highly competitive world.

1.3.The present case is a classic example where the husband levelled

allegations that the wife was suffering from schizophrenia. However, such

allegations were rejected by the learned principal District Judge in the

impugned judgement and decree passed in H.M.O.P.No.136 of 2019 dated

29.01.2024. Aggrieved by the said decision, the present appeal has been

preferred .

1.4. The husband, who is the appellant in the connected Civil

6/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

Miscellaneous Appeals, has challenged (i) the dismissal of H.M.O.P. No. 136 of

2019 filed by him seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty

under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and (ii) the decree

granted in favour of the respondent-wife for restitution of conjugal rights in

H.M.O.P.No.262 of 2023.

2.In addition, the husband has filed a Civil Revision Petition assailing the

direction of the Family Court for return of jewellery. The respondent-wife, in

turn, has also preferred a Civil Revision Petition challenging the same order

insofar as it relates to the Mangalsutra, and further questioning the

disallowance of a portion of her claim relating to jewellery. All the aforesaid

proceedings were, therefore, clubbed together and heard conjointly. Details of

the proceedings are follows:

Case Filed by For the relief

CMA(MD).No.696 of 2024

arising out of order dated

29.01.2024 in H.M.O.P.No.

136 of 2019

Husband Dissolution of Marriage

CMA(MD).No.697 of 2024

arising out of order dated

29.01.2024 in H.M.O.P.No.

262 of 2023

Husband Restitution of Conjugal

Rights

C.R.P(MD).No.2029 of 2023

arising out of order dated

17.05.2023 in I.A.No.1 of

2022 in H.M.O.P.No.136 of

2019

Husband Return of golden articles

7/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

C.R.P(MD).No.3231 of 2023

arising out of order dated

17.05.2023 in I.A.No.1 of

2022 in H.M.O.P.No.136 of

2019

Wife Return of Mangalsutra

C.R.P(MD).No.2086 of 2024

arising out of order dated

29.01.2024 in I.A.No.17 of

2024 in H.M.O.P.No.136 of

2019

Husband Return of golden articles

3.For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to as

“husband” and “wife”.

4.The brief facts necessary for adjudication are as follows:

The marriage between the husband and the wife was solemnised on

27.07.2018, according to Hindu rites and customs, and the same was

subsequently registered on 17.07.2018 before the Sub-Registrar Office at

Vallam. The marriage was an arranged one. At the relevant point of time, the

husband was employed in Mumbai, and following the marriage, the couple

resided together in Mumbai and initially led a peaceful matrimonial life.

4.1.According to the husband, during the subsistence of the marriage, the

wife conceived, and at the time of medical examination, it came to light that she

was allegedly suffering from schizophrenia and had been undergoing treatment

8/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

for the same for a considerable period prior to the marriage. It is his specific

case that this material fact was deliberately suppressed by the wife and her

family at the time of marriage, thereby vitiating his consent.

4.2.The husband would further contend that the wife exhibited abnormal

behaviour, particularly during late hours, speaking incoherently and displaying

conduct inconsistent with normal matrimonial life. Upon enquiry with the

wife’s parents, he claims to have been informed that she had taken treatment at

a hospital in Thanjavur and had discontinued her studies on account of her

mental health condition.

4.3.It is also his case that due to such conduct and the alleged

suppression of an incurable mental disorder, he found it impossible to continue

the marital relationship. In these circumstances, he issued a legal notice dated

24.09.2019 calling upon the wife to consent for divorce, failing which he

informed her that he would initiate proceedings to declare the marriage null and

void. Subsequently, he instituted proceedings before the Sub Court, Thanjavur,

which came to be returned for presentation before the competent Family Court,

whereupon he filed the petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

4.4.Per contra, the wife filed a detailed counter affidavit denying all

9/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

allegations. She specifically refuted the claim that she was suffering from

schizophrenia or any incurable mental illness. According to her, the marriage

was solemnised after due negotiations, and the husband’s family, being fully

aware of her background, had willingly agreed to the alliance.

4.5.The wife further alleged that, notwithstanding an initial

representation that no dowry would be demanded, the husband and his family

insisted upon substantial dowry, including gold jewellery weighing several

sovereigns, a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, and other articles including a car. It is her

case that these demands were met by her family.

4.6.She would further state that the couple resided together in Mumbai

and even undertook a honeymoon trip to Kodaikanal, and lived together

harmoniously for a considerable period. According to her, the matrimonial

discord arose only after the husband’s parents and sister began residing with

them, and their interference led to strained relations.

4.7.The wife has also alleged that she was subjected to both physical and

mental cruelty at the hands of the husband and his family members, and that the

allegations regarding her mental health condition are false, motivated, and

with the sole intention to avoid marital obligations.

10/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

4.8.It is the further case of the wife, as borne out from her counter and

evidence, that the medical opinion obtained from the doctor in Mumbai did not

attribute any mental illness to her; rather, it indicated that the husband was

exhibiting signs of dissatisfaction and emotional detachment towards the

marital relationship. According to her, the allegation of schizophrenia is a

subsequent invention to evade marital obligations.

4.9.The wife has also made serious allegations that the husband

compelled her to undergo abortion, which was initially refused by several

doctors. Ultimately, he is stated to have taken her to a private hospital, where,

after persistent insistence, termination was undertaken at an advanced stage of

pregnancy, when the foetus had crossed seven months. She has described the

episode as traumatic and inhuman, asserting that the child was born and died

thereafter. Despite such circumstances, she has maintained that she was always

willing to continue the matrimonial relationship.

4.10.On these averments, the wife not only resisted the petition for

divorce but also sought restitution of conjugal rights, asserting her bona fide

intention to resume cohabitation.

11/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

4.11.In reply, the husband contended that the counterclaim for restitution

of conjugal rights was not maintainable without an independent petition. He

denied the allegations relating to dowry demand, cruelty, and forced abortion. It

was also contended that certain properties, including the car, stood in the name

of the wife’s father and not in his name. He further asserted that the claim for

restitution lacked bona fides, particularly in view of the irretrievable

breakdown of the marriage.

5.On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Family Court framed

appropriate issues. During trial, on the side of the husband, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were

examined and documents Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. On the side of the wife,

R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked. Court

documents were marked as Exs.X1 to X19 and Ex.C1.

6.Upon appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the

learned trial Judge, by judgment dated 29.01.2024, dismissed the petition for

divorce filed by the husband, allowed the petition filed by the wife for

restitution of conjugal rights, and challenging the same, present Civil

Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed.

12/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

7.Submission of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the

husband:

Assailing the said findings, learned senior counsel appearing for the

husband submitted that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the medical

evidence and the admissions elicited during cross-examination. It was

contended that the evidence on record, particularly that of the doctors examined

as P.W.3 to P.W.5, clearly established that the wife had been taken treatment for

schizophrenia even prior to the marriage, and that such material fact had been

suppressed, thereby constituting fraud as well as mental cruelty.

7.1.It was further contended that the medical records, including the

prescriptions and supporting documents marked on the side of the husband,

corroborated the oral testimony of the medical witnesses. According to the

learned senior counsel, the trial court erred in disregarding such evidence and

in failing to draw the necessary inference regarding the incurable nature of the

alleged mental illness.

7.2.The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on precedents of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court to contend that long and continuous separation,

coupled with the breakdown of matrimonial harmony, would itself amount to

mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage

13/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

Act. In this regard, reliance was placed on the principle laid down in Samar

Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, wherein it was held that prolonged separation and

absence of cohabitation may, in appropriate cases, constitute mental cruelty.

7.3. The learned senior counsel also raised a ground of irretrievable

breakdown of marriage and prayed to grant divorce on the said ground that they

were in the separation of more than 6 years.

8.Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the wife:

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the wife submitted that the

plea of schizophrenia is a belated plea and unsubstantiated allegation. It was

argued that the medical evidence relied upon by the husband is unreliable, as

the concerned doctor had neither properly identified the prescriptions nor

confirmed their authorship. It was further contended that the documents relied

upon were only photocopies and lacked evidentiary value.

8.1.It was thus submitted that there is no credible medical evidence to

establish that the wife was suffering from any incurable mental disorder, much

less that such condition existed prior to the marriage or was suppressed. The

learned counsel emphasized that mere allegation of mental illness, without

cogent and reliable proof, cannot form the basis for dissolution of marriage.

14/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

8.2.Learned counsel appearing for the wife further submitted that the

allegation of mental illness is wholly misconceived and unsupported by

credible evidence. It was contended that the wife had entered into the marriage

during the pendency of her B.E. degree course and had discontinued her studies

only at the instance of the husband and his family members. Subsequently, after

matrimonial discord arose, she resumed and successfully completed her M.Tech

course also. This, according to the learned counsel, is a strong indicator of her

sound mental faculties.

8.3.Emphasis was also placed on the fact that the wife withstood the

extensive cross-examination spanning four days, covering more than 30 pages

of deposition. It was submitted that her ability to withstand such a prolonged

and searching cross-examination, while giving coherent and consistent answers,

demonstrates her mental stability and capacity, thereby negating the allegation

of schizophrenia or any debilitating disorder affecting matrimonial life.

8.4.It was further contended that, apart from bald and unsubstantiated

pleadings, the husband has not produced any convincing evidence to establish

that the wife exhibited abnormal conduct of such a degree as to render

15/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

cohabitation impossible. The legal requirement under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the

Hindu Marriage Act is not merely the existence of a mental disorder, but that

such disorder must be of such a nature and degree that the spouse cannot

reasonably be expected to live with the other.

8.5.In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta reported in 1988

(4) SCC 247 wherein it has been held that mere existence of a mental disorder

is insufficient; the degree, impact, and consequences on matrimonial life must

be clearly established by cogent evidence.

8.6.It was also submitted that the doctors examined on the side of the

husband have not categorically deposed that the wife was suffering from an

incurable mental disorder or that she was incapable of discharging matrimonial

obligations. The medical evidence, according to the learned counsel, is

inconclusive and unreliable, particularly in the absence of proper proof of

prescriptions and contemporaneous medical records.

8.7.The learned counsel further argued that the parties had, in fact, lived

together happily for a considerable period, including going for a honeymoon

16/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

trip, and that the wife had conceived during the subsistence of the marriage.

These circumstances, it was contended, are inconsistent with the allegation of

severe disorder existing from prior to the marriage.

8.8.It was thus submitted that the separation was not attributable to any

conduct on the part of the wife, but was solely on account of the husband’s

unilateral withdrawal from the matrimonial relationship based on unfounded

apprehensions. Therefore, the principle of “irretrievable breakdown” or

prolonged separation, as discussed in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in

2007(4)scc 511 would have no application to the facts of the present case.

8.9.On the question of jewellery, learned counsel for the wife submitted

that substantial evidence was adduced to establish that 100 sovereigns of gold

were entrusted to the husband and his family at the time of marriage. However,

the trial court, without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary

evidence, provided the relief only to claim 40 sovereigns. It was contended that

the unshaken testimony of P.W.1, corroborated by P.W.2 and P.W.3, clearly

establishes entrustment of the entire quantity, and therefore, the wife is entitled

to relief of the recovery of the remaining 60 sovereigns.

17/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

8.10.It was further argued that the direction of the trial court ordering

return of the Mangalsutra, while simultaneously granting restitution of conjugal

rights, is legally untenable, as both reliefs are mutually inconsistent.

9.In reply, learned counsel for the husband reiterated that there was no

reliable evidence to establish entrustment of 100 sovereigns and that the trial

court rightly limited the relief. It was also contended that once the marital

relationship has irretrievably broken down, The decree for restitution of

conjugal rights is unsustainable.

10.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the husband and the learned counsel appearing for the

wife and perused the materials available on record and the precedents relied

upon by them.

11.Points for Determination:

Upon hearing the rival submissions and on perusal of the entire materials

on record, the following points arise for consideration:

(i)Whether the dismissal of the husband’s petition for divorce under the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the consequential grant of a decree for

18/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife, without accepting the

husband’s plea that the wife was suffering from Schizophrenia, are sustainable

in law?

(ii)Whether the wife is entitled to the relief of recovery of the remaining

60 sovereigns of gold jewellery?

(iii)Whether the direction for return of the Mangalsutra is legally

justified?

12.discussion:

For better appreciation, this court extracts Section 5 and 13(1)(i-a), 13(1)

(iii) of Hindu marriage act:

13.Divorce.— Section 5

Divorce.—(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or

after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition

presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by

a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party—

(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had

voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his

or her spouse; or

(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated

the petitioner with cruelty; or

(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been

suffering continuously or intermittently from mental

disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the

petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the

respondent. Explanation.—In this clause,—

(a) the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness,

arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic

disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and

includes schizophrenia; (b) the expression “psychopathic

disorder” means a persistent disorder or disability of mind

(whether or not including sub—normality of intelligence)

which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously

irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and

whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical

treatment; or]

5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage.—A

marriage may be solemnized between any two

Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled,

namely:—

(i) neither party has a spouse living at the time

of the marriage;

(ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party—

(a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it

in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or

(b) though capable of giving a valid consent,

has been suffering from mental disorder of such

a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for

marriage and the procreation of children; or

(c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of

insanity;

(iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of 2

[twenty-one years] and the bride, the age of 3

[eighteen years] at the time of the marriage;

(iv) the parties are not within the degrees of

prohibited relationship unless the custom or

usage governing each of them permits of a

marriage between the two;

(v) the parties are not sapindas of each other,

unless the custom or usage governing each of

them permits of a marriage between the two;

19/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

13.The combined reading of Section 5 and Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)

(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 makes it clear that the spouse seeking

divorce on the ground of mental unsoundness must establish two essential

ingredients.

13.1. First, it must be proved that before marriage,the respondent was

suffering from a mental disorder of such a nature and to such an extent as to

render the respondent unfit for marriage and procreation of children.

13.2. Secondly,it is the bounden duty of the party alleging such grounds

to prove not only the existence of a mental disorder and it must be shown that

the respondent is suffering from incurable unsound mind, or has been suffering

continuously or intermittently from such mental disorder of such a kind and

extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the

respondent “mental disorder” includes mental illness, arrested or incomplete

development of mind, psychopathic disorder, or any other disorder or disability

of mind, including Schizophrenia. Mere proof of mental illness is insufficient;

it must be demonstrated that the condition has reached a degree that makes

marital life impossible and impracticable.

13.3. The medical understanding of schizophrenia has evolved over time.

In 1896, Emil Kraepelin first described the condition as dementia praecox.

Subsequently, in 1911, Eugen Bleuler introduced the term schizophrenia,

20/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

signifying a disintegration of the mind. With the advancement of psychiatric

science, the condition thereafter came to be examined in matrimonial

jurisprudence in various courts around the world and the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of india.

13.4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ram Narain Gupta v.

Rameshwari Gupta, reported in (1988) 4 SCC 247 after an elaborate

consideration of the available medical literature in the year 1988 and provision

under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 laid down the

governing principles on schizophrenia as a ground for divorce by affirming

observation of Division bench judgment of calcutta highcourt in the case of

Rita Roy S v.Sitesh Chandra reported in [AIR 1982 Cal 138 “... each case of

schizophrenia has to be considered on its own merits and further held that

schizophrenia, by itself, is insufficient and that the degree, intensity, and impact

of the disorder on matrimonial life must be established and the relevant portions

are as follows:

20.The context in which the ideas of unsoundness of

“mind” and “mental disorder” occur in the section as grounds for

dissolution of a marriage, require the assessment of the degree of

the “mental disorder”. Its degree must be such that the spouse

seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other.

All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant

21/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

of decree. If the mere existence of any degree of mental

abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage few marriages

would, indeed, survive in law.

“ .... The burden of proof of the existence of the requisite degree of

mental disorder is on the spouse basing the claim on that state of facts.”

33....., the mere branding of a person as schizophrenic will not

suffice. For purposes of Section 13(1)(iii) “schizophrenia” is what

schizophrenia does.

13.5. The said principle was reiterated in the case of Sharda v.

Dharmpal reported in (2003) 4 SCC 493 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court

recognized that mental disorder under Section 13(1)(iii) must be of such a

nature that the spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other and

a few strong instances indicating a short temper and somewhat erratic

behaviour on the part of the spouse may not amount to his/her suffering

continuously or intermittently from mental disorder and relevant portions are

extracted hereunder:

“11. It is trite law that for the purpose of grant of a decree of

divorce what is necessary is that the petitioner must establish that

unsoundness of mind of the respondent is incurable or his/her

mental disorder is of such a kind and to such an extent that he

cannot reasonably be expected to live with his/her spouse.

22/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

12. A sound mind indisputably is a key to a happy married

life. A party to the marriage must, thus, have normal and sound

mind so as to live a happy marital life. A disorder of thought,

behaviour and mind leading to unsoundness of mind may give rise

to a cause of action for filing an application under Section 13(1)

(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The burden of proof of the

existence of requisite degree of mental disorder is on the spouse

making the claim on that state of fact.

13. The decisions rendered by various courts of this country

including this Court lead to a conclusion that a decree for divorce

in terms of Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act can be granted in the event

the unsoundness of mind is held to be not curable. A party may

behave strangely or oddly inappropriate and progressive in

deterioration in the level of work may lead to a conclusion that he

or she suffers from an illness of slow growing developing over the

years. The disease, however, must be of such a kind that the other

spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with him or her. A few

strong instances indicating a short temper and somewhat erratic

behaviour on the part of the spouse may not amount to his/her

suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder.”

13.6. Similarly, in the case of Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma

Latha, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 225 the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that

mere allegation of mental illness or occasional abnormal conduct cannot by

itself constitute a ground for dissolution of marriage unless the statutory

requirements are clearly proved and the relevant paras are as follows:

23/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

“ 34. ..In the English case of Whysall v. Whysall : (1959) 3

All ER 389] , it was held that a spouse is “incurably of unsound

mind” if he or she is of such mental incapacity as to make normal

married life impossible and there is no prospect of any

improvement in mental health, which would make this possible in

future. The High Court of Judicature of Calcutta, in Pramatha

Kumar Maity v. Ashima Maity [AIR 1991 Cal 123] has held that

mental disorder of the wife, even if proved, cannot, by itself,

warrant a decree of divorce and it must be further proved that it is

of such a nature as the husband could not be expected to live with

the wife.

36. The Allahabad High Court, in Titli v. Alfred Robert Jones

[AIR 1934 All 273] has held that where it has come on record that

the wife has improved her educational qualifications and has been

looking after her children, the apprehension of the husband that

there is danger to his life or to his children is not borne out is the

finding recorded in the said case. Inability to manage his or her

affairs is an essential attribute of an “incurably unsound mind”.

The facts pleaded and the evidence placed on record produced by

the appellant in this case does not establish such inability as a

ground on which dissolution of marriage was sought for by him

before the trial court.

36. ........ It was further stated that if there is good compliance

with treatment coupled with good social and family support, a

schizophrenic patient can continue their marital relationship. ........

1.A pertinent point to be taken into consideration is that the

respondent had not only completed MBBS but also did a

24/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

postgraduate diploma in Medicine and was continuously

working as a Government Medical Officer and had she been

suffering from any serious kind of mental disorder,

particularly, acute type of schizophrenia, it would have been

impossible for her to work in the said post. The appellant

husband cannot simply abandon his wife because she is

suffering from sickness. ...

39. It is thus clear that the respondent, even if she did suffer from

schizophrenia, is in a much better health condition at present.

Therefore, this Court cannot grant the dissolution of marriage on

the basis of one spouse's illness. ....”

13.7. The consistent principle emerging from the aforesaid precedents is

that mere diagnosis of schizophrenia or mental illness, by itself, is not a ground

for dissolution of marriage. In cases alleging schizophrenia as a ground, the

burden lies on the party seeking divorce to establish, by acceptable medical and

legal evidence, and the disorder must be shown to be of continuous or

recurrent nature and of such intensity that the parties are unable to lead a

normal and peaceful matrimonial life, and the spouse seeking relief cannot

reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse. Mere abnormal conduct,

eccentricity, or isolated symptoms, without further aggravating circumstances

affecting matrimonial life, would not constitute a valid ground for divorce

under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

25/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

14.To determine the core issue whether the respondent-wife was

suffering from schizophrenia at the time of marriage and whether her

subsequent and continuous conduct was of such a nature and degree that the

petitioner-husband could not reasonably be expected to live with her, this court

extracts the following portion of the evidence of husband:

14.1.From the records, it is evident that both spouses belong to the same

community and are distantly related. The marriage was arranged through one

Veerachamy, an EX- LIC employee, who acted as the mediator between the

families. Prior to the marriage, the husband visited the residence of the wife’s

family on two more occasions. The families also conducted a formal marriage

arrangement function on 30.03.2018, following which the marriage was

solemnized on 2.07.2018. These circumstances clearly indicate that there was

free interaction and communication between the families before the marriage.

14.2.After the marriage, the parties initially resided at the wife's parental

home at Thanjavur. Thereafter, they stayed for some time at the husband’s

parental home in Chennai Subsequently, they proceeded on a honeymoon trip

to Kodaikanal for four days. After returning from Kodaikanal, they again stayed

at Thanjavur and Chennai before relocating to Mumbai. Where the husband was

26/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

working as a manager in a Nationalized bank .Following the customary “Aadi”

visit by the wife to her parental home, both spouses returned to Mumbai and

established their matrimonial home there.

14.3.As per the relevant portion of the evidence of the husband, it is

clear that during their stay at Chennai and Mumbai, the wife actively

participated in his family functions, including the birthday celebration of the

husband’s sister. The parties also visited several temples and tourist places

together.

14.4.Significantly, no abnormal conduct or behavioural issues were either

pleaded or proved during this period. The first indication of alleged mental

health issue arose only after the wife’s pregnancy was confirmed on

02.02.2019. According to the husband’s case, upon confirmation of the

pregnancy, the consulting gynaecologist referred the wife to a psychiatrist,

examined as P.W.3. It is the husband’s contention that the psychiatrist informed

him that the wife was suffering from schizophrenia and that such condition

might adversely affect their future life. The evidence on record shows that the

matrimonial discord commenced only thereafter. Until then, there had been no

allegation of abnormal behaviour on the part of the wife. Even according to the

27/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

husband, the disputes between the parties arose only after the said medical

consultation and the relevant portion of evidence is as follows:

ehd; Muk;g fhyk; njhl;Nl Nrh;e;J tho jahuhf ,y;iy

vd;why; mg;gb fpilahJ. mtuJ tpahjpapd; ntspg;ghL

njhpa te;j gpd;G jhd; Nrh;e;J tho Kbatpy;iy.

14.5.Though several doctors were examined on behalf of the husband

and various medical records were marked, all the doctors admitted that they had

not furnished any final diagnosis conclusively establishing schizophrenia.

Significantly, the documents produced are only photocopies of prescriptions

and treatment records. No final medical opinion, diagnostic report, or expert

conclusion establishing schizophrenia was produced before the Court.

14.6.Apart from the husband, his father was examined. However, neither

the husband nor his father spoke about any specific instance of abnormal

conduct on the part of the wife that would indicate the existence of

schizophrenia or any serious mental disorder. Veerachamy, an EX- LIC

employee, who acted as the mediator also was not examined.

14.7.On the side of the wife, she examined herself and her mother. The

mother categorically deposed that her daughter had never suffered from any

mental illness, including schizophrenia. During cross-examination, it was only

28/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

elicited that during her final year of college the wife had experienced

occasional giddiness on the account of fourth year examination fear and had

taken certain medicines for the relief of stress. Except that isolated

circumstance, there is absolutely no material available on record to infer that

she was suffering from schizophrenia before and after marriage.

14.8.From the above sequence of events and the evidence available on

record, it is clear that the entire documentary and oral evidence fails to establish

that the wife was suffering from schizophrenia. Consequently, the allegation

that the wife or her family suppressed any material fact relating to her mental

health before the marriage also remains unproved. None of the medical records

produced before the Court disclose any diagnosis of schizophrenia prior to or at

the time of marriage.

14.9.In such circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that the

husband has miserably failed to prove that the wife was suffering from

schizophrenia or that any material fact relating thereto was fraudulently

suppressed by her family. Consequently, the allegation of mental cruelty

founded upon such unproved assertion cannot be sustained.

29/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

15.The husband had not even pleaded any specific abnormal conduct on

the part of the wife. The only allegation made by him was that the wife used to

attend to household duties during midnight hours and also stated about the

following statement nature of hallucination in para 10 of petition:

“10. From the moment when the petitioner acquired

knowledge about her disease, the attitude and actions of the

respondent have brought fear in the mind of the petitioner. The

respondent used to shout in high tone mtd; me;j oiti!

btr;Rfpl;L vd;id buhk;g lhh;r;rh; gd;whd;/ mij btr;R Fspf;Fk;nghJ

glk; g[of;fpwhd;/ ghk;ng Vw;nghh;nl vd;id gj;jpjhd; ngRJ mtd; nky

vg; I Mh; nghl;lh rhpahfptpLk;/ The petitioner was unable to

understand whom the respondent was referring to....”

Except the said vague allegation, there is absolutely no pleading or evidence to

establish that the conduct of the wife was so abnormal or grave as to make

matrimonial life impossible. The husband examined himself as P.W.1 and also

examined doctors on his side to prove that the wife was suffering from

schizophrenia.

16. Though three doctors were examined on the side of the husband, they

had not produced any original medical records in the form of collective opinon

to conclusively establish that the wife was suffering from schizophrenia.

Admittedly, no case sheet, scan report, diagnostic report, psychological

30/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

assessment, discharge summary, or any other contemporaneous medical record

was produced before the Court to substantiate the alleged mental illness. Even

the doctors, in their evidence, had merely stated that prescriptions were issued

to the wife.

17.A mere production of prescriptions, without supporting clinical

records or diagnostic materials, cannot by itself establish schizophrenia.

Significantly, the prescriptions themselves disclose that several medicines

prescribed therein were not exclusively meant for schizophrenia. While

assessing evidence , this Court finds that these documents do not arise from a

natural course of events. On the contrary, they appear to be products of a

premeditated attempt to dissolve the marriage. Had there been a genuine

medical condition, there would have been consistent medical records, credible

testimony from treating doctors, and clear evidence demonstrating the impact of

such illness. These essential elements are conspicuously absent in the present

case. Therefore, the prescriptions alone cannot lead to an inference that the wife

was suffering from schizophrenia.

18.No evidence has been adduced to establish that the wife exhibited

abnormal conduct of the kind ordinarily associated with a disorder such as

31/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

violent behavior, destruction of household articles, or abusive conduct in

public. The husband has failed to prove any specific instances of such

behaviors conclusively to demonstrate any abnormal conduct on her part to

such an extent that the spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the

other and such severity as to render matrimonial life impossible or unworkable

and prove the existence of an incurable or aggravated mental disorder both

before and after entering marriage. From reading of entire evidence placed

before this court and more particularly, the following portions of evidence of

husband, nothing is available to establish that the wife was suffering from any

mental illness of such a nature and extent as to render her incapable of

attending to her routine affairs or unfit for marriage and procreation of children.

“vdJ ngw;Nwhu; tPl;by; vdJ kidtpia tpl;L tpl;L

ghk;Ng nrd;Nwdh vd;why; nrd;idapy; %d;W ehl;fs; vdJ

ngw;Nwhu; tPl;bypUe;J tpl;L `dp%d; nrd;W ehd;F

ehl;fs; ,Ue;Jtpl;L jQ;rhT+Uf;F te;Njhk;> mjd; gpd;G

22.07.2018 md;W vdJ kidtpiaAk; mioj;Jf;nfhz;L

Kk;igf;F nrd;Nwd;

nrd;idapy; ehq;fs; ,Ue;jNghJ> ehDk; vdJ

kidtpAk; ,ize;J vdJ rNfhjuupd; Foe;ijapd;

gpwe;jehs; tpohtpw;F nrd;Nwhk; vd;why;> Mkhk;. Kk;igf;F

nrd;w gpwF> ehDk; vdJ kidtpAk; Nfhapy; Nghd;w

ntspaplq;fSf;Fr; nrd;wpUf;fpNwhk; vd;why;> Mkhk;.”

32/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

Page No.13

ehd; ghh;j;J ngz; gpbj;jpUf;fpwJ vd;W nrhd;djd;

Nghpy; ngz; tPl;lhh; vq;fs; tPl;bw;F te;jhh;fs; vd;why;

Mkhk;. vjph;kDjhuh; jpUkzj;jpd; NghJ vd;d nra;J

nfhz;bUe;jhh;fs; vd;why; fy;Yhhp gbg;ig Kbj;J

Ntiyf;F Kaw;rp nra;J nfhz;bUe;jhh;fs;.

Page No.18

vdJ kidtp kdeyj;jhy; ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;shh; vd;W

Kjd; Kjyhf vdf;F ve;j lhf;lh; nrhd;dhh; vd;why;

Kk;ig paramount kUj;Jtkidiar; Nrh;e;j lhf;lh;

gpurd;dh nlz;Ly;fh; vd;gth; nrhd;dhh;. mth; vdJ

kidtpf;F vt;tsT ehl;fs; kUj;Jt rpfpr;ir nra;jhh;

vd;why; xU ehs; kl;Lk; nra;jhh;. me;j kUj;Jth; mJ

Fwpj;J vdJ kidtpf;F rhd;wpjo; vJTk;

toq;fpapUf;fpwhuh vd;why; ,y;iy. mtiuj; jtpu NtW

ve;j kUj;JtUk; vdJ kidtpapd; kdeyk; FiwghL

Fwpj;J nrhy;ypapUf;fpwhh;fsh vd;why; NtW ahUk;

nrhy;ytpy;iy.

Page No.20

epjh;rdp jhd; ey;y kdey; cilath; vd;gij

ep&gpg;gjw;F ve;j kUj;JthplKk; ghpNrhjidf;F cl;gl

jahuhf ,Uf;fpwhh; vd;whYk;> mth; mt;thW kdey

jFjpAilath; vd;W cWjp nra;ag;gl;lhy; ehd; mtiu

Vw;Wf;nfhs;sj; jahuhf ,Uf;fpNwdh vd;why; ,y;iy.

epjh;rdpapd; gl;lg;gbg;igAk; ngha; nrhy;yp jhd; vd;id

jpUkzk; nra;jpUf;fpwhh;. epjh;rdpia jpUkzj;jpw;F gpd;G

33/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

Ntiyf;F mDg;GtJ vdJ Nehf;fkh vd;why; ,y;iy.

jpUkzj;jpd; NghJ epjh;rhp gl;lg;gbg;ig Kbj;Jtpl;lhh;

vd;why; Mkhk;. jpUkzj;jpw;F gpwF mth; fy;Yhhpf;F

Nghftpy;iy vd;why; Mkhk;.

Page No.24

kUj;Jth; ntq;fNlrd; ,t;tof;fpy; k.rh.6 Mf

tprhhpj;jpUf;fpNwhk; vd;why; Mkhk;. mt;thW ngw;w

kUj;Jt fUj;Jiu ( Doctor’s Opinion)

vd;dplk; ,Uf;fpwjh vd;why; ,y;iy.

Page No.25

ehd; Muk;g fhyk; njhl;Nl Nrh;e;J tho jahuhf ,y;iy

vd;why; mg;gb fpilahJ. mtuJ tpahjpapd; ntspg;ghL

njhpa te;j gpd;G jhd; Nrh;e;J tho Kbatpy;iy.

19. Prior to the marriage and for about eight months thereafter

particularly until the wife conceived there were no indications or behavioral

manifestations suggestive of Schizophrenia. It is seen that, for the first time,

when the wife was taken to a doctor PW3 in Mumbai, a diagnosis was

purportedly made that she was suffering from schizophrenia and that marital

life would not be possible. He had seen her only once. However, such an

opinion is not supported by cogent medical records and was not corroborated

by any independent and was not followed by any consistent or bona fide course

of treatment. This circumstance materially undermines the subsequent

34/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

allegation that the wife was suffering from a pre-existing mental disorder. On

the contrary, the spouses lived together in a normal, affectionate, and

harmonious marital relationship. the parties had, in fact, lived together happily

for a considerable period, including going for a honeymoon trip, and that the

wife had conceived during the subsistence of the marriage. These

circumstances, are inconsistent with the allegation of severe disorder existing

from prior to the marriage. The doctors examined on the side of the husband

have not categorically deposed that the wife was suffering from an incurable

mental disorder or that she was incapable of discharging matrimonial

obligations.

19.1. On the contrary, the evidence on record probabilises the case of the

wife that she never suffer from schizophrenia and her husband and her in laws

with predetermined notion filed this divorce proceeding. Infact ,there were

evidence abundantly available in this case that wife did not show any

significant abnormalities and she had normal acquaintance and social

relationship with relatives and she had managed her affairs and also discharged

her matrimonial duties as a normal wife and her activities never caused any

endanger to the life of husband .she is also capable of procreation. The

medical evidence,is inconclusive and unreliable, Subsequently, after

35/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

matrimonial discord arose, she resumed and successfully completed her M.Tech

course also. The wife also withstood extensive cross-examination spanning

four days, covering more than 30 pages of deposition. Therefore, her ability to

withstand such a prolonged and searching cross-examination, while giving

coherent and consistent answers, demonstrates her mental stability and capacity

Therefore this court has no hesitation to accept the submission of the learned

counsel that above factors are a strong indicator of her sound mental faculties

and consequentially this court negates husband's allegation of schizophrenia

or any debilitating disorder affecting matrimonial life.

19.2. Further, the conduct of the husband and his family failed to secure

appropriate medical care for the wife during her pregnancy and themselves

aimed to undergoing abortion and subjected her to cruelty on the premise of an

unsubstantiated diagnosis by subjecting her to various psychiatric assessment

in more than four hospitals and more gravely, are alleged to have been

responsible for the termination of the pregnancy, resulting in the loss of 8

months old foetus.

19.3. Furthermore,the only circumstance relied upon by the husband is

the various prescriptions to infer that wife had taken some medical treatment

36/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

and was taking medicines. However, wife categorically denied the allegations

and taking of medicines. Therefore , in the absence of clear medical evidence

as to the incurable nature and severity of the alleged illness and acceptable

evidence to prove her conduct was so aggravated that the husband could not

reasonably be expected to lead a normal matrimonial life with her ,this court

declines to infer schizophrenia of such a degree as to render cohabitation

impossible.

19.4. Further, in the course of married life whether at its initial,

intermediate, or later stages if either the husband or the wife suffers from any

natural physical ailment, it is the solemn duty of the spouse to accept it with

tolerance and address it with compassion. The family members connected to the

marriage are equally expected to act in the same manner. This is matrimonial

tolerance and the Hon'ble SC has held in the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel

Kaur reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22

“14. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment

and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a

certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage.”

20. After marriage, it is a legitimate and bona fide expectation within the

37/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

Indian family system that a daughter-in-law should be treated with the same

affection, care, dignity and respect as a daughter. This expectation is founded

upon deeply rooted moral, cultural and societal values that have long guided

family relationships in India. Treating the daughter-in-law as one’s own

daughter implies that, just as a family would care for a daughter in times of

illness, they must equally protect and support the daughter-in-law. The absence

of this basic humane approach, And entertaining an intention to somehow

secure a divorce by any means, clearly reflects the conduct of the husband and

his family members in the present case.

21. More importantly, portraying the wife as mentally unsound and

disseminating defamatory allegations has the effect of impairing her dignity.

Unfounded allegations, particularly relating to mental health, not only amount

to cruelty but also constitute an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and

personal autonomy of the spouse. the wife, despite such imputations affecting

her privacy and dignity, expressed her willingness to continue the matrimonial

relationship. This conduct reflects her bona fides and commitment to the

institution of marriage as utmost Tolerance and mutual trust form the bedrock

of matrimonial life. Therefore, to cast reckless, unfounded, or humiliating

allegations upon one’s spouse, particularly allegations touching upon mental

38/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

illness or emotional instability, instead of extending emotional support,

understanding, and compassionate companionship, may deeply wound the

dignity, self-worth, and emotional well-being of the other spouse. Therefore,

when emotional difficulties arise within marriage, understanding and empathy

are regarded as more conducive to emotional healing than humiliation,

suspicion, or accusation.

22. The true foundation of married life is not accusation, but compassion,

patience, understanding, and mutual respect. Making unfounded allegations of

mental illness against the spouse, without any supporting material, on mere

assumptions and suspicions, and thereafter searching for evidence to somehow

substantiate such allegations before a Court of law, without taking even a single

bona fide step to ascertain the correct medical diagnosis, and without extending

the ordinary emotional remedies of matrimonial life such as affection,

emotional closeness, companionship, intimate understanding, loving embrace,

and the warmth of a caring marital relationship capable of alleviating mental

stress and emotional pain, would itself amount to neglect of the marriage

forsaking the fundamental obligations of love, care, emotional support, and

companionship, and result in committing offence under matrimonial

jurisprudence and resultantly he cannot be permitted to seek matrimonial relief

39/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

by taking advantage of his own matrimonial wrong within the meaning of

Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

23. Accordingly, this Court is constrained to hold that the attempts made

by the husband’s side to depict the wife as mentally ill are not bona fide efforts

to establish truth, but rather constitute a calculated exercise to fabricate

evidence for the purpose of breaking the matrimonial bond. Such conduct, in

itself, amounts to mental cruelty. Therefore, the allegations advanced by the

husband lack credibility and remain unsubstantiated by acceptable evidence,

and hence cannot be sustained. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court

finds no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. The

appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

24. Discussion on mental cruelty:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar

Reddi reported in (1988) 1 SCC 105, A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur reported

in (2005) 2 SCC 22, Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit reported in (2006) 3

SCC 778, Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, Naveen Kohli v.Neelu Kohli

reported in (2006) 4 SCC 558 and Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur

Panesar reported in (2025) 3 SCC 790, categorically held that matrimonial

40/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

relief on mental cruelty must depend upon the cumulative effect of the conduct

and the surrounding circumstances of married life of each case.

24.1. The Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Nirmal Singh Panesar

v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 790 has held as follows:

It is well-accepted proposition that “cruelty” is a course or

conduct of one party which adversely affects the other. The

“cruelty” may be mental or physical, intentional, or

unintentional.......

11. The crux of the various decisions of this Court on the

interpretation of the word “cruelty” is that it has to be construed

and interpreted considering the type of life the parties are

accustomed to; or their economic and social conditions and their

culture and human values to which they attach importance. Each

case has to be decided on its own merits.

24.2. The Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of A.

Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 has held

as follows:

Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may

be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as

41/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to

give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. . First, the

enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the

impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it

caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or

injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of

inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the

conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there

may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad

enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious

effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered.

In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is

proved or admitted.

24.3. The Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Vinita

Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 778 has held as

follows:

...it must be proved that one partner in the marriage however

mindless of the consequences has behaved in a way which the other

spouse could not in the circumstances be called upon to endure,

and that misconduct has caused injury to health or a reasonable

apprehension of such injury. There are two sides to be considered

42/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

in case of cruelty. From the appellant's side, ought this appellant to

be called on to endure the conduct? From the respondent's side,

was this conduct excusable? The court has then to decide whether

the sum total of the reprehensible conduct was cruel. That depends

on whether the cumulative conduct was sufficiently serious to say

that from a reasonable person's point of view after a consideration

of any excuse which the respondent might have in the

circumstances, the conduct is such that the petitioner ought not be

called upon to endure.

24.4. The Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh v.

Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 98 has held as follows:

On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court

and other courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that

there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of

“mental cruelty” within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty

can be covered. No court in our considered view should even

attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty.

99.Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is

equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound,

therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one

definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not

amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from

person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of

sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial

43/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human

values and their value system.

100.... There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed

parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters.

The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be

to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking

aforementioned factors in consideration.

101.No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet

we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human

behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of

“mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding

paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive:

(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties,

acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible

for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad

parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of

the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that

the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such

conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty,

frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference

and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life

for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish,

disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of

other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment

calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the

spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse

actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse.

The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or

apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference

or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness

causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can

also amount to mental cruelty.

44/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness,

possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and

emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the

ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the

married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be

adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few

isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty.

The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where

the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the

acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it

extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may

amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation

without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of

his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion

without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her

husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for

considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or

valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage

not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation,

it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond

repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal

tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not

serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant

regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like

situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.

25. In this case, the husband did not make any pleading about her

conduct that could have caused him either physical cruelty or mental cruelty

and there is total lacking of oral or documentary evidentiary proof . This court

also does not find any material circumstances either to presume physical cruelty

45/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

or mental cruelty to grant divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 from the available records.

26. Only argument placed by the learned senior counsel appearing for

husband on the basis of following paragraph of the Hon'ble SUPREMECOURT

in the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 is

that separation of six year amounts to mental cruelty:

(xiv)Where there has been a long period of continuous

separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial

bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction

though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie,

the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of

marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the

feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations,

it may lead to mental cruelty.

The submission of the learned Senior Counsel that prolonged separation

by itself constitutes mental cruelty warranting a decree of divorce,

relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh

v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, is misconceived and cannot be

accepted in the facts of the present case.

46/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

27. Firstly, the learned Senior Counsel has selectively relied upon certain

observations in Samar Ghosh without appreciating the judgment as a whole.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after an exhaustive survey of the law relating to

mental cruelty, categorically held that mental cruelty cannot be defined by any

uniform standard and must necessarily be determined on a case-to-case basis,

having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.

27.1.Secondly, the Supreme Court expressly observed that it was neither

possible nor desirable to formulate any exhaustive or uniform guidelines

capable of universal application. The illustrative instances mentioned in the

judgment were not intended to operate as inflexible rules

28. A holistic reading of the judgment makes it clear that mere passage of

time or long separation, by itself, does not automatically amount to mental

cruelty. The principle underlying the observations relating to prolonged

separation is that the conduct of one spouse must be such as to result in the

breakdown of matrimonial cohabitation, leading to a long and continuous

period of separation. Such separation, coupled with the resulting mental agony,

frustration, deprivation of matrimonial companionship, and the impossibility of

resuming normal marital life, may in appropriate cases constitute mental

47/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

cruelty.

29. Therefore, the observations regarding long separation cannot be

isolated from their factual and legal context and applied mechanically to every

case. In the present case, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances

on record, the reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel upon a selective

portion of the guidelines enumerated in Samar Ghosh is wholly misplaced and

does not advance the case of the appellant.

30. Further, In this case ,the separation was not attributable to any

conduct on the part of the wife, but was solely on account of the husband’s

unilateral withdrawal from the matrimonial relationship based on unfounded

apprehensions. A litigant cannot be allowed to create circumstances leading to

the breakdown of the relationship and then rely upon those very circumstances

as a ground for seeking dissolution of the marriage. The distinction between

pre-litigation separation on the ground of matrimonial misconduct on part of

offending party and continuation of the said conduct during separation of the

pendency of proceedings is well recognized. Only in cases where parties have,

over a considerable period owing to matrimonial misconduct , allowed the

marital bond to wither into a mere legal fiction prior to approaching the court,

48/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

can such circumstance be considered. The period of separation occasioned by

ongoing litigation cannot, by itself, be elevated to a ground of mental cruelty .

The argument that prolonged separation constitutes cruelty must fail for yet

another reason namely it is a plea without pleading and proof. Further, the

clock of separation cannot be artificially lengthened by including the years

consumed in litigation. The law distinguishes between a marriage long dead

before the lis and one strained during its pendency. this is not a case of a

marriage that has died a natural death, but one where one party seeks to

abandon responsibility and sanctify that abandonment through judicial decree.

The law does not support such convenience. The marriage here was

consummated in 2018–2019, and within nearly 6 months, it was the husband

who chose estrangement. One who engineers the rupture cannot later plead the

debris as justification. The law cannot encourage a spouse to make

unsubstantiated allegations and thereafter derive advantage from the very

consequences of such allegations and the ensuing litigation. To do so would

amount to permitting a party to take advantage of his own wrong, a course

expressly prohibited by Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955.Accepting such a contention would, in effect, permit a party to level

unproven allegations of mental disorder, prolong the litigation, and thereafter

seek dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the relationship has

become unworkable. Such an approach would reduce the institution of

49/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

marriage to a mere plaything, capable of being taken up at will and discarded

at convenience. Marriage is not a toy to be played with and thrown away when

difficulties arise; it is a solemn human relationship founded upon mutual

commitment, trust, companionship, dignity, and responsibility.

31. Discussion on long separation and irretrievable broking down of

marriage :

The contention of the appellant that the marriage has irretrievably broken

down owing to a period of separation of six years cannot be accepted. The

factual matrix reveals that the marriage was consummated around the years

2018–2019, and within a short span of approximately nine months, the husband

voluntarily withdrew from the company of the wife. A party who himself is

responsible for the separation cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own

wrong and plead breakdown of marriage.'' Injuria propria non cadet in

beneficium facientis'' No benefit shall accrue to a person from his own wrong

doing. At this juncture, it is apposite to reiterate the settled legal position that

the doctrine of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” is not a statutory ground

under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The power to dissolve a marriage on this

ground is vested exclusively in the Supreme Court of India in exercise of its

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and

that too in exceptional circumstances and the issue with regard to irretrievable

50/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

breakdown of marriage and passing of decree of divorce under Article 142 of

the Constitution has been adumbrated by the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of

supremecourt in the case of Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan reported in

(2023) 14 SCC 231 and the same has been followed and reiterated by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nirmal Singh Panesar v.

Paramjit Kaur Panesar, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 790 also applied and

declined to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of

marriage and relevant paragraphs are as follows:

18. ......In view of the aforestated decision [Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun

Sreenivasan, (2023) 14 SCC 231] of the Constitution Bench, there

remains no shadow of doubt that this Court can depart from the

procedure as well as the substantive laws, and exercise its

discretion under Article 142 for dissolving the marriage between

the parties by balancing out the equities between the conflicting

claims of the parties, however, such discretion should be exercised

with great care and caution. It has also laid down that this

discretionary power could be exercised for dissolving the marriage

on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown to do “complete

justice”, though one of the spouses opposes the prayer for

dissolution of marriage.

32. In the present case, the contention of the appellant that the marriage

51/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

has become a dead marriage merely on account of prolonged separation during

the pendency of the litigation cannot be accepted. In contemporary society, the

status of a divorcee may not carry the same degree of social stigma as in the

past. However, the present case concerns a decree of divorce sought on the

basis of serious allegations of mental illness that remain unproved and

unsubstantiated. Such allegations have far-reaching consequences for the

dignity, reputation, privacy, social acceptance, and fundamental rights of the

spouse throughout her life. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the

submission that the long period of separation, by itself, has rendered the

marriage a deadwood relationship warranting dissolution. The doctrine of

irretrievable breakdown of marriage or prolonged separation cannot be invoked

in a manner that rewards a spouse who has failed to establish grave allegations

of mental illness against the other spouse.

33. Conclusion: In C.M.A(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024:

This Court, upon an independent re-appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence,finds that there is no material on record to substantiate

the allegation that the wife was suffering from schizophrenia of such a nature

and degree as to constitute a ground for divorce and accordingly the husband

has failed to establish, by cogent and convincing evidence, that the wife was

52/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

suffering from schizophrenia of such a nature and degree as to attract the

provisions of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Accordingly, this

Court holds that the husband has failed to establish cruelty and mental illness or

any other ground warranting dissolution of marriage. The dismissal of the

divorce petition by the trial court is, therefore, entitled to be confirmed.

34.Jewellery Claim

With regard to the claim of 100 sovereigns of gold jewellery, this Court

finds that there is no reliable and satisfactory evidence to establish entrustment

of the entire quantity as alleged. The learned trial Judge has, on proper

appreciation of evidence, granted relief to the extent of 40 sovereigns. This

finding does not warrant interference and is accordingly confirmed.

35.Mangalsutra

Insofar as the direction for return of the Mangalsutra is concerned, this

Court finds merit in the contention of the wife. When the wife has made a bona

fide offer for reunion and has succeeded in obtaining a decree for restitution of

conjugal rights, the direction to return the Mangalsutra is incongruous and

legally unsustainable. Such a direction runs contrary to the subsistence of the

marital tie and the intent to preserve the matrimonial relationship. Therefore,

53/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

the order directing return of the Mangalsutra is liable to be set aside.

36.Result:

36.1. CMA(MD).No.696 of 2024 is hereby dissmissed by confirming the

dismissal of the husband’s petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.136 of 2019

dated 29.01.2024 .

36.2.CMA(MD).No.697 of 2024 is hereby dismissed by confirming the

decree dated 29.01.2024 for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife

in H.M.O.P.No.262 of 2023.

36.3.The direction for return of 40 sovereigns of jewelry in

C.R.P(MD).No.2029 of 2024 arising out of order dated 17.05.2023 in I.A.No.1

of 2022 in H.M.O.P.No.136 of 2019 is confirmed.

36.4.The order directing return of the Mangalsutra in C.R.P(MD).No.

3231 of 2023 arising out of order dated 17.05.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in

H.M.O.P.No.136 of 2019 is set aside.

Accordingly:

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in CMA(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of

2024 are dismissed.

54/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

(ii) The Civil Revision Petition(s) filed by the husband in CRP(MD).Nos.

2029 and 2086 of 2024 are dismissed.

(iii) The Civil Revision Petition filed by the wife in CRP(MD).No.3231

of 2023, insofar as it challenges the direction for return of the Mangalsutra, is

allowed.

(iv) No costs.

37.Direction: Duty of this Court does not end with the disposal of

this case. In view of the increase the Matrimonial Litigations with serious

allegation of mental illness the identity of the party in the litigation process

would cause serious repercussion to the remaining part of their life, this Court

delves into further discussion.

38. Matrimonial litigation involving allegations of schizophrenia or any

other serious mental disorder, whether ultimately proved or disproved, casts a

long shadow upon their dignity, privacy, reputation, and the social

acceptance .The public disclosure of identity of the persons against whom such

allegations are made will be a curse in the society The law cannot remain silent

for the psychological injury, social ostracism, enduring emotional trauma, and

the perpetuation of stigma associated with mental illness in their day-to-day

lives till their lifetime. Such humiliation can be legtimately avoided. The

55/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

constitutional values of privacy, dignity, and individual autonomy require the

courts to adopt measures that protect litigants from unnecessary exposure and

humiliation. Preservation of anonymity in such proceedings serves not only in

the interests of the parties but also advances a humane and sensitive approach

towards issues relating to mental health.

39. Accordingly, as a measure to safeguard the privacy and dignity of the

parties, their names and other identifying particulars shall not be disclosed in

judgments, orders, pleadings, or court records made available to the public. The

parties shall be described as "X" and "Y", or by such other anonymised

nomenclature as the circumstances of the case may warrant. Therefore, this

Court directs all courts exercising jurisdiction over matrimonial causes that, in

cases involving allegations of mental illness, including schizophrenia and other

serious psychiatric disorders, the parties shall throughout the proceedings be

referred to as "X" and "Y" or by such anonymised descriptions as may be

appropriate, without disclosing their names, caste titles, addresses or any other

particulars capable of revealing their identity.

[N.A.V.,J.] & [K.K.R.K.,J.]

15.06.2026

NCC :Yes/No

Index :Yes/No

Internet :Yes/No

sbn

56/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

To

1.The Family Court,

Thanjavur.

2.The Section Officer,

VR Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

57/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

and

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

sbn

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024

and

C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024

15.06.2026

58/58 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis