2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 31.08.2026

DELIVERED ON : 30.09.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

and

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.D.SUMATHI

CMA(MD) NO. 724 of 2022

{CNR: HCMD010522922022}

Case QR

V.S.Ananda Raj ... Appellant

- Vs. -

A.Sridevi ... Respondent

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family

Courts Act, to set aside the Judgment and Decree order dated 01.03.2022

passed in O.P.No.154 of 2020 on the file of the Family Court, Theni.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Murali

For Respondent : Mrs.S.Vaidurya

1/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by M.D.SUMATHI, J.]

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the

husband, who was the petitioner before the Family Court, Theni,

challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2022 made in H.M.O.P.

No.1 of 2017, whereby the petition filed by him under Section 13(1)(ia)

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage on the

ground of cruelty, came to be dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be

referred to as the husband and the wife, as arrayed before the Family

Court.

3. The marriage between the husband and the wife was

solemnized on 18.06.2007 at Anand Mahal, Theni, according to the

customs prevailing between the parties. At the time of marriage,

25 sovereigns of gold jewellery were stated to have been given to the

wife and a three-sovereign gold chain was given to the husband. After

2/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

the marriage, the parties commenced their matrimonial life at

Arumbakkam, Chennai.

4. According to the husband, the initial period of matrimonial

life was peaceful for about six months. Thereafter, according to him, the

conduct and attitude of the wife underwent a change and she started

subjecting him to mental cruelty. It is his specific case that the wife

considered herself and her family to be superior to him and his family

and frequently made disparaging remarks against him and his family. He

further alleged that the mother of the wife had influenced her against him

and his family.

5. It is the further case of the husband that whenever he

returned home late from work, the wife unnecessarily suspected him and

accused him of deliberately remaining away from the matrimonial home

and avoiding matrimonial life. He also alleged that the wife had informed

him that she had originally intended to marry a Siddha doctor and that

she had married him only because of pressure exerted by her mother and

other family members.

3/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

6. The parties had no child during their matrimonial

relationship. The husband alleged that the wife had an 8 cm fibroid

growth in the uterus, for which she had undergone treatment and surgery

at a fertility hospital at Chennai, but that even thereafter she did not

conceive. He further alleged that the wife had physical problems relating

to her bones and nerves and that she used the same as a reason to avoid

matrimonial life.

7. The husband further alleged that the wife repeatedly left the

matrimonial home without informing him and went to her mother's

residence at Dindigul. In particular, he referred to an incident dated

10.04.2015. According to him, thereafter, his family members intervened

and persuaded the wife to return to the matrimonial home on 04.08.2015.

8.The husband further alleged that for about four years the wife

had refused to cooperate with him in matrimonial life whenever he

sought her company.

9. The principal incident relied upon by the husband is stated

to have occurred on 04.06.2016. According to him, the wife abused him

4/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

in public, called him an impotent person, assaulted him with her footwear

and caused injuries to his face. He further alleged that after returning

home, the wife abused him in filthy language, assaulted him with a

broom and stated that she did not want to continue living with him.

According to him, she removed her thali and threw it at him.

10. It is further alleged that thereafter the wife tore their

photographs, took her jewels and belongings and left the matrimonial

home and went to her mother's residence at Dindigul. According to the

husband, she thereafter refused to return and resume matrimonial life.

11. The husband further pleaded that on 27.03.2017, his

relatives went to Dindigul and requested the wife to return and live with

him, but that her mother threatened them. He also stated that on

11.06.2017 he personally approached the wife and requested her to

resume matrimonial life, but she refused.

12. On the above pleadings, the husband contended that the

cumulative conduct of the wife constituted both mental and physical

cruelty and that there was no possibility of reunion between the parties.

5/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

He therefore sought dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia)

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

13. The wife resisted the petition and denied the allegations of

cruelty. While admitting the factum of marriage and the jewellery given

at the time of marriage, she disputed the manner in which the husband

projected the matrimonial relationship.

14. According to the wife, the parties initially lived together at

Arumbakkam only for about two months. She denied having considered

herself or her family superior to the husband or his family. She also

denied that she unnecessarily suspected the husband whenever he

returned late from work.

15. On the contrary, the wife alleged that the husband was in

the habit of consuming alcohol and returning home in a drunken

condition and that her objection was only on account of his drinking

habit and the danger involved in his riding a two-wheeler after

consuming alcohol. She, therefore, contended that the allegation of

suspicion levelled against her was a false projection of the

6/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

circumstances.

16. With regard to the absence of children, the wife admitted

that there was no child born during the subsistence of the marriage and

that she had undergone surgery for fibroid growth. She specifically

contended that she had undergone treatment in the hope of establishing a

normal matrimonial life and that the absence of a child was not

attributable to any wilful refusal on her part to lead matrimonial life with

the husband.

17. The wife denied that she had repeatedly left the

matrimonial home without any reason. According to her, whenever the

husband had to travel outside Chennai for two or three days in

connection with his work, he himself used to leave her at her sister's

house for her safety. She, therefore, disputed the allegation that she used

to leave the matrimonial home after quarrelling with him.

18. The wife specifically denied the alleged incident dated

04.06.2016. She denied having assaulted the husband with a slipper,

called him impotent, beaten him with a broom, removed and thrown the

thali, torn their photographs or left the matrimonial home pursuant to any

7/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

such incident.

19. She further denied that the husband's family members had

brought her back to the matrimonial home on 04.08.2015 and disputed

the allegation that his relatives had gone to Dindigul on 27.03.2017 or

that her mother had threatened them. She also denied having refused to

resume matrimonial life without justification.

20. The wife therefore contended that the allegations made

against her were false, unsubstantiated and had been put forward only for

the purpose of obtaining a decree of divorce.

21. Before the Family Court, the husband examined himself as

PW.1 and also examined his father as PW.2. On the side of the wife, she

examined herself as RW.1 and examined Selvakumar, her brother, as

RW.2.

22. The husband marked the marriage invitation, family/ration

card and his Aadhaar card as Ex.1 to Ex.3. On the side of the wife, the

Aadhaar card of her supporting witness was produced.

8/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

23. The Family Court, upon appreciation of the pleadings and

oral and documentary evidence, did not accept the case of the husband

that the wife had subjected him to cruelty. In particular, the Family Court

considered the allegation that the wife had repeatedly called the husband

an impotent person and used humiliating expressions. The wife had

denied the allegation and the Family Court found that there was no

independent evidence corroborating the husband's version. The Court

also noted that the husband's father had not spoken about such incidents.

24. Insofar as the allegation of suspicion regarding the

husband's late return from work is concerned, the Family Court found

that merely questioning the husband about his late arrival at home could

not, by itself, be treated as an act of cruelty. The Court found that the

husband had not produced sufficient evidence to establish that the

conduct of the wife in this regard amounted to matrimonial cruelty.

25. The Family Court also considered the allegation relating to

the wife's repeated visits to Dindigul. On appreciation of the evidence,

the Court found that there was insufficient material to establish that the

wife had deliberately deserted the husband or had left the matrimonial

9/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

home without justification. The explanation offered by the wife that the

husband himself used to leave her at her sister's house when he had to

travel for work was also taken into consideration.

26. The Family Court then considered the serious allegations

relating to the alleged incident dated 04.06.2016, namely, assault with a

slipper, calling the husband impotent, causing injuries, assaulting him

with a broom, removing and throwing the thali, tearing photographs and

leaving the matrimonial home. The Court found that these allegations

were not satisfactorily corroborated by independent evidence.

27. The Family Court also noticed that neither party had lodged

any police complaint against the other in respect of the alleged acts of

cruelty and took the said circumstance into consideration while assessing

the credibility and seriousness of the allegations.

28. With regard to the absence of children, the Family Court

noted that there was no sufficient medical evidence to establish that the

wife was permanently incapable of bearing a child. The Court further

observed that childlessness could itself have caused emotional stress

10/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

between the parties and that the mere absence of children could not

constitute a ground for divorce against the wife. Aggrieved by the said

judgment and decree, the present appeal has been filed.

29. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband

would contend that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the

evidence of the husband in its proper perspective and has placed undue

emphasis on the absence of independent corroboration. According to the

learned counsel, matrimonial cruelty ordinarily occurs within the four

walls of the matrimonial home and cannot invariably be expected to be

proved through independent eyewitnesses or police complaints.

30. It is further contended that the Family Court has considered

the individual allegations in isolation instead of examining the

cumulative effect of the conduct attributed to the wife throughout the

matrimonial relationship. According to the appellant, the allegations of

repeated humiliation, suspicion, refusal to cooperate in matrimonial life,

leaving the matrimonial home and the alleged assault dated 04.06.2016

ought to have been considered together.

11/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

31. The learned counsel for the appellant would further

contend that the prolonged separation between the parties and the

continued failure to resume matrimonial life are relevant circumstances

while determining whether the matrimonial relationship has survived in

substance.

32. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/wife would support the judgment of the Family Court and

contend that the allegations of cruelty are bald, uncorroborated and

specifically denied by the wife. According to the respondent, the husband

failed to establish the alleged acts of assault, humiliation, desertion or

refusal to cohabit by acceptable evidence.

33. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made

by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent

and perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and the

judgment of the Family Court.

34. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is

12/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

whether the husband has established that the wife had treated him with

cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, and whether the Family Court was justified in dismissing the

petition for divorce.

35. At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind that the burden

rests upon the spouse alleging cruelty to establish the same by acceptable

evidence. Cruelty is undoubtedly to be assessed having regard to the

entire matrimonial relationship and not by adopting a rigid or mechanical

formula. However, the principle that the matrimonial relationship has to

be considered as a whole cannot be converted into a principle that

unproved allegations, when accumulated, would automatically become

proved cruelty.

36. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samar

Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, makes it clear that there can

be no straitjacket formula for determining mental cruelty and that the

assessment has to be made having regard to the peculiar facts and

circumstances of each case. The cumulative effect of the conduct is

certainly relevant; however, the foundational facts constituting such

13/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

conduct must themselves be established.

37. In the present case, the allegations of the husband

regarding humiliation, suspicion, assault, use of abusive language,

removal of thali, tearing of photographs and refusal to resume

matrimonial life were specifically denied by the wife. The Family Court,

after appreciating the oral evidence, found that the serious allegations

had not been satisfactorily established.

38. We find no perversity or illegality in the said appreciation

of evidence. The Family Court had the advantage of considering the

evidence of the parties and their supporting witnesses. The mere fact that

the alleged incidents are said to have taken place within the matrimonial

home does not relieve the husband of the obligation to establish the

essential facts constituting cruelty.

39. The allegation that the wife repeatedly called the husband

an impotent person is a serious allegation. When such an allegation is

specifically denied by the wife, the Court is required to examine whether

the same has been established by reliable evidence. In the present case,

the Family Court found no satisfactory corroboration. Significantly, even

14/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

the father of the husband had not spoken in his deposition to such an

incident. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the said finding.

40. Likewise, the allegation regarding the wife's alleged

suspicion whenever the husband returned late from work cannot, in the

absence of further circumstances establishing oppressive or intolerable

conduct, be treated as matrimonial cruelty. A matrimonial relationship

necessarily involves questions, disagreements, apprehensions and

differences between spouses. Every such disagreement cannot be

elevated to the level of cruelty.

41. The same principle applies to the allegation relating to the

wife's visits to Dindigul. The explanation offered by the wife that she

was left at her sister's residence when the husband travelled for work

cannot be brushed aside. The husband has not established, by convincing

evidence, that such visits constituted wilful abandonment of the

matrimonial home or an act calculated to cause mental cruelty.

42. The most important circumstance requiring consideration is

the issue relating to childlessness.

15/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

43. The evidence on record indicates that the parties remained

childless during their matrimonial relationship and that the wife had a

medical condition for which she underwent treatment and surgery. The

wife did not remain passive in relation to the issue of childbearing. On

the contrary, she subjected herself to medical treatment with the hope of

conceiving and thereby establishing a normal family life with the

husband.

44. In this context, we cannot mislay the sight of the physical

and emotional burden involved in fertility treatment. Assisted

reproductive treatment is not merely a medical appointment or an

isolated procedure. It may involve repeated hormonal injections, repeated

monitoring through scans and blood tests, invasive procedures for

retrieval of eggs, medication following the procedure and, where

required, embryo transfer and continued hormonal support.

45. The physical burden is accompanied by considerable

emotional strain. During the course of such treatment, the woman is

required to live through repeated cycles of hope and apprehension. The

16/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

treatment may involve bodily discomfort, bloating, pain, hormonal

fluctuations, anxiety, loss of privacy and repeated medical intervention.

The period following embryo transfer may also involve an intense period

of uncertainty until the pregnancy test is undertaken.

46. Where a treatment cycle fails, the emotional consequence

cannot be understood merely as the failure of a medical procedure. For a

woman who has undergone such treatment in the hope of establishing a

family, the failure may involve grief, disappointment, self-blame, anxiety

and a sense of betrayal by her own body. The social environment may

add to such distress, particularly when she is repeatedly questioned

regarding pregnancy or subjected to comparisons with other women who

have conceived.

47. The Court is not required to medically diagnose such

emotional consequences in the present proceedings. What is relevant is

that the wife had undergone the treatment in an attempt to overcome the

difficulty relating to childbearing and to preserve the matrimonial

relationship. Such conduct is wholly inconsistent with the allegation that

she had deliberately avoided matrimonial life or had no intention of

17/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

continuing the marriage.

48. Indeed, the very fact that the wife subjected herself to

repeated and difficult fertility treatment demonstrates that she had not

abandoned the matrimonial relationship. The treatment involved physical

discomfort, repeated medical procedures, emotional uncertainty and

considerable personal strain. Her willingness to undergo such treatment

cannot be treated as conduct amounting to cruelty; rather, in the

circumstances of the present case, it is a circumstance demonstrating her

intention to preserve the marriage.

49. Matrimonial life does not consist only of companionship

during periods when everything proceeds without difficulty. The true test

of a matrimonial relationship also lies in the manner in which spouses

face circumstances of illness, medical difficulties, childlessness, financial

stress and other challenges that arise during married life.

50. Hitches relating to conception and childbearing are,

unfortunately, capable of generating anxiety, misunderstandings,

disagreements and emotional stress between spouses. Such difficulties

may lead to differences in the manner in which the spouses react to the

18/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

problem. One spouse may become anxious, while the other may

withdraw or react differently. Such circumstances, by themselves, cannot

be treated as proof of cruelty.

51. Most importantly, the inability of the parties to have a child

cannot, by itself, be converted into a matrimonial fault of the wife.

Marriage cannot be reduced to the sole object of procreation. A spouse

cannot be treated as having failed in the matrimonial relationship merely

because the parties did not have a child.

52. If the husband has instituted the proceedings substantially

in the backdrop of the parties remaining childless and the difficulties

encountered in relation to conception, the Court has to be particularly

cautious in examining whether the medical condition has been

improperly converted into an allegation of cruelty against the wife.

53. The evidence in the present case does not establish that the

wife wilfully refused to undergo treatment or deliberately prevented the

parties from having a child. On the contrary, the material relied upon by

the wife indicates that she underwent treatment in the hope of

19/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

conceiving.

54. The wife has consistently maintained that she is willing to

resume matrimonial life with the husband. Even during interaction before

the Court, she has expressed her willingness to reunite with the husband

and continue the matrimonial relationship.

55. This conduct assumes considerable significance. A person

who intends to abandon the matrimonial relationship would ordinarily

not be expected to repeatedly express willingness to return and resume

matrimonial life. The wife's expressed willingness to reunite cannot be

disregarded merely because the parties have lived separately for a

considerable period.

56. The husband himself pleaded that attempts were made to

bring the wife back. The fact that attempts were made for reunion,

therefore, cannot be treated as an admission that the matrimonial

relationship had become impossible of restoration. On the contrary, it

demonstrates that there continued to be an effort to preserve the

marriage.

20/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

57. The appellant seeks to rely upon the prolonged separation

between the parties. No doubt, long separation is a relevant circumstance

in matrimonial adjudication. However, prolonged separation cannot, in

every case, be mechanically converted into a statutory ground of divorce

under Section 13(1)(ia).

58. The question before this Court remains whether cruelty

within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) has been established on the facts

of the present case.

59. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that

the mere fact of separation, coupled with the failure of reconciliation,

establishes cruelty. Particularly so when the respondent-wife has not

abandoned the marriage and continues to express her willingness to

resume matrimonial life.

60. The position would be entirely different where both

spouses have unequivocally demonstrated that the marriage is dead, there

is no possibility of cohabitation and the continuation of the relationship

21/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

has itself become a source of cruelty. But that is not the factual position

before us.

61. In the present case, the wife has expressed her willingness

to live with the husband. The wife had also undergone medical treatment

relating to conception. There is no acceptable material to establish that

she had deliberately refused matrimonial companionship or had

intentionally frustrated the matrimonial relationship.

62. The Court must also be conscious of the fact that a

matrimonial relationship cannot be assessed by applying the standard of

a relationship which has never encountered difficulties. A marriage may

pass through periods of disagreement, misunderstanding, emotional

strain and even temporary separation. Such difficulties, particularly when

connected with childlessness and medical treatment, cannot

automatically amount to cruelty.

63. The allegations regarding the alleged assault dated

04.06.2016 are undoubtedly serious. However, seriousness of an

allegation cannot substitute proof. The Family Court, after appreciating

22/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

the evidence, found that the allegations were not satisfactorily

corroborated. We do not find any perversity in such conclusion

warranting appellate interference.

64. Similarly, the allegations concerning the alleged removal of

the thali, tearing of photographs and refusal to return to the matrimonial

home were specifically denied by the wife and have not been established

to the standard required for granting a decree of divorce.

65. We are therefore of the considered view that the appellant

has failed to establish a continuous course of conduct of such a nature as

would satisfy the legal test of matrimonial cruelty.

66. We are also unable to accept the contention that the

prolonged separation, by itself, establishes that the marriage has

irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not, by

itself, a statutory ground available to the husband under Section 13(1)(ia)

of the Hindu Marriage Act.

67. The matrimonial relationship cannot be held to have broken

23/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

down merely because the parties have experienced difficulties in having

a child. Nor can the emotional strain arising from infertility treatment be

treated as proof that the wife was responsible for the breakdown of the

marriage.

68. On the contrary, the wife's conduct in undergoing fertility

treatment and expressing her willingness to resume cohabitation

demonstrates that she had not given up on the marriage.

69. We therefore find that the Family Court has correctly

appreciated the evidence and has rightly concluded that the husband

failed to establish cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the

Hindu Marriage Act.

70. The findings recorded by the Family Court are based upon

appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from perversity, illegality or

material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of

appellate jurisdiction.

71. We may also observe that the purpose of matrimonial

24/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

adjudication is not merely to identify a spouse upon whom blame can be

placed. The Court has to determine whether the statutory ingredients for

dissolution have been established. Where the evidence demonstrates that

the matrimonial differences arose in the backdrop of childlessness,

medical treatment, misunderstandings and ordinary matrimonial

disagreements, and where the wife continues to express willingness to

resume matrimonial life, the Court cannot grant a decree of divorce

merely because the parties have lived separately for a considerable

period.

72. It is equally important for this Court to recognise the

deeply personal and emotional burden that a woman bears when she

undergoes treatment for conception. The desire to have a child may be

shared equally by both spouses, but the journey towards achieving that

desire is not borne equally by both. The woman has to place her own

body through repeated injections, hormonal medication, scans, blood

tests, medical procedures and, at times, painful and invasive treatment.

Every such procedure is accompanied by the anxiety of whether she

would conceive, the hope that the next attempt would succeed, and the

silent fear and disappointment when it does not. What may appear to

25/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

others as merely a medical procedure is, for the woman, a repeated

physical and emotional battle fought within her own body.

73. There is also a pain which cannot always be seen or

measured. With every unsuccessful attempt, a woman may be left

wondering whether her body is at fault, whether she has failed in

fulfilling her husband’s expectations, and whether the marriage itself

may suffer because of something over which she has no control. She

undergoes the physical pain of treatment while simultaneously carrying

the emotional weight of expectation, disappointment, uncertainty and

fear. The husband may certainly share the emotional anguish of

remaining childless; however, the physical consequences of the treatment

are borne by the woman herself. Therefore, when a wife, despite

knowing the physical and emotional hardship involved, willingly

undergoes such treatment in the hope of bearing a child and preserving

the matrimonial relationship, that conduct cannot, by any stretch of

imagination, be treated as a rejection of the marriage or as cruelty

towards her husband.

74. On the contrary, such conduct speaks of her hope, her

26/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

patience and her continued attachment to the matrimonial relationship. A

woman who repeatedly subjects herself to painful treatment in the hope

of building a family with her husband cannot simultaneously be

portrayed as a person who has abandoned the matrimonial bond.

Matrimonial life is not a journey without difficulties; it is a shared life in

which illness, childlessness, financial difficulties, misunderstandings and

emotional disappointments may arise. The tears shed in a hospital

corridor, the anxiety before a medical report, the pain endured during

treatment and the hope carried from one attempt to another are not

matters that can be reduced to allegations in a matrimonial proceeding.

If, in the midst of all these difficulties, the wife continued to undergo

treatment with the hope of having a child and expressed her willingness

to resume life with her husband, such circumstances, viewed in their

proper humanoid and matrimonial perspective, would indicate an earnest

attempt to preserve the marriage rather than an intention to cause cruelty

or bring the matrimonial relationship to an end.

75. In such circumstances, we find that the learned Family

Court was justified in dismissing H.M.O.P. No.154 of 2020.

27/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

76. In the ultimate analysis, the husband has failed to prove

that the wife treated him with cruelty within the meaning of Section

13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

77. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

The judgment and decree dated 01.03.2022 passed by the learned Judge,

Family Court, Theni, in H.M.O.P.No.154 of 2020, dismissing the petition

filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955, is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.

[ G.R.S., J.] & [M.D.S., J.]

30.09.2026

Index: Yes/No

Internet: Yes/No

NCC : Yes/No

PJL

To

1.The Judge, Family Court, Theni.

2.The Section Officer,

V.R Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

28/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

29/30

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

2026:MHC:4039C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.,

AND

M.D.SUMATHI, J.,

PJL

Judgment made in

C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

30.09.2026

30/30

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