[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Sankari @ M.G. Angulakshmi … vs S. Gokulakrishnan … on 9 January, 2026
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan
C.M.A.No.606 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 11.12.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.01.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.M.A.No. 606 of 2018 and C.M.P. No.5305 of 2018
Sankari @ M.G. Angulakshmi … Appellant
Vs.
S. Gokulakrishnan … Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the
Family Court Act 1984, against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2017
made in HMOP No.331 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Erode.
For Appellant : Mr. M. Guruprasad
For Respondent : Mr. K.S. Jayaganeshan
JUDGMENT
This instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/wife against the
final judgment and decree dated 19.06.2017 made in HMOP No.331 of 2015
on the file of the Family Court, Erode, wherein the Family Court,Erode,
granted divorce in favour of the respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 02:45:00 pm )
2. The brief facts leading to the instant appeal are that the marriage
between the appellant / wife and respondent / husband was solemnised on
02.02.2006 according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Uthukuli,
Tiruppur Taluk and District. The conflict ensued between the parties and the
parties have been living separately since December 2014.
3. The respondent / husband preferred a divorce petition under Section
13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, vide HMOP No.331/2015, before the
Family Court, Erode, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of mental
cruelty and threat of life on the petitioner and his mother. The grounds
seeking divorce were that the appellant / wife used to develop quarrel
everyday and did not permit respondent / husband even to touch his mother
and thereby caused mental cruelty to the respondent / husband. Under these
circumstances, the respondent / husband filed HMOP No.209/2012 before Sub
Court, Erode, under Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of Hindu marriage Act, which
was transferred to the Family Court, Erode, and renumbered as HMOP
No.75/2014. Thereafter, in pursuant to the mediations, they rejoined and the
said HMOP No.75/2014 was not pressed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 02:45:00 pm )
4. Few months later, the appellant / wife again started quarrelling with
the husband and used filthy languages against him and his mother and also
accused him of having illicit relationship with his mother. Her behaviour was
abnormal and openly challenged her husband that she would kill him and his
mother. On 24.09.2014, she deliberately picked up a quarrel with regard to
the formalities in the tonsuring and ear piercing ceremony of their daughter at
Kuladeivam temple and used filthy language against his mother, who was 65
years old. Hence, he was constrained to file the present HMOP No. 331/2015
on the grounds of mental cruelty and threat to life.
5. The divorce petition was contested by the wife who denied all the
allegations and claimed that her parents at the time of marriage had given her
jewels and household articles. She had denied all the allegations made in the
divorce petition and that while leaving the matrimonial home she had left
69.500 gms of gold jewels and expressed her willingness to live along with her
husband and prayed for dismissal of the divorce petition. The respondent's
petition seeking for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty was allowed by
the Family Court, Erode, vide order dated 19.06.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 02:45:00 pm )
6. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is preferred by the wife.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant / wife strongly urged before this
Court that, the ground on which the learned Family Court granted divorce is
illegal and implausible and the same necessitates interference by this Court
and that there is no acceptable and cogent evidence to substantiate that the
husband suffered cruelty at the hands of the wife. It is further submitted that
the husband failed to prove the allegations of cruelty against himself and his
mother. Without proper appreciation of evidence on record, the learned
Family Court Judge had granted divorce in a cavalier manner which is not
tenable on law and facts. Hence, prayed for setting aside the judgment and
decree dated 19.06.2017, made in HMOP No. 331/2015 on the file of the
Family Court, Erode.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that the parties are living separately from the year 2014, i.e., for
more than 11 years and there has been a complete cessation of cohabitation
and consortium, rendering the marriage defunct for all practical and legal
purposes. The learned Family Court Judge, after appreciating the evidence on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 02:45:00 pm )
record, has rightly granted the decree of divorce which calls for any
interference by this Court.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials on record.
10. The husband had sought for divorce mainly on the ground of 'mental
cruelty'. Recent judgments emphasize the subjective nature of 'cruelty' and the
importance of a consistent pattern of behaviour. Courts acknowledge that what
constitutes cruelty for a woman may differ from a man, requiring a broad and
elastic approach in examination. It looks for a consistent pattern of behaviour
causing emotional distress, not just occasional quarrels. 'Mental cruelty' is a
significant factor. Sustained emotional torment, false allegations and loss of
trust in the marital relationship can constitute mental cruelty. Further, mental
cruelty refers to the infliction of emotional or psychological distress on one
spouse by the other. It includes behavior or conduct that is of such a nature
that it makes it impossible for a spouse to live with the other. Mental cruelty
can take various forms, such as constant humiliation, verbal abuse,
harassment, neglect, threats, or persistent indifference towards the well being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 02:45:00 pm )
of the other spouse. The concept of mental cruelty is subjective and depends
on the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no exhaustive list of acts
or behaviors that constitutes mental cruelty, as it can vary based on individual
experiences and cultural contexts. It is important to note that the courts
consider the cumulative effect of various acts and behaviors when determining
mental cruelty. The severity, frequency, and duration of conduct are also taken
into account. The spouse seeking divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty
must provide evidence and demonstrate that the cruelty has reached the level
where it has made the continuation of the marriage intolerable.
11. The outcome depends on whether the wife can effectively prove that
the decision of the Family Court was erroneous. While each case is unique,
recent judgments illustrate these principles. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Amutha vs. A.R. Subramanian in Civil Appeal No.2643 of 2023, in a
case where a wife appealed a divorce decree, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
upheld the divorce, agreeing that 'sustained emotional torment' and a pattern
of behavior making cohabitation impossible, constituted cruelty.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 02:45:00 pm )
12. Ultimately, the decision to set aside a decree of divorce depends
entirely on the appellate court's assessment of the evidence and whether the
initial finding of cruelty was legally sound and factually supported. Even a
few incidents can amount to mental cruelty if they are severe, cause significant
emotional distress, and make living together impossible, but generally Courts
look for a consistent pattern of behavior, not just normal marital
disagreements. Actions like false accusations, severe humiliations, or
persistent neglect can be grounds for divorce, depending on the specific
circumstances and impact on the victim.
13. In the present case, the incidents narrated by the husband are only
normal marital friction. Normal quarrels, jealousy or everyday disagreements
are generally not considered mental cruelty. The conduct of the wife in the
present case is not so grave that it causes reasonable apprehension of harm,
making it unsafe or injurious to live with the husband. There is no acceptable
and cogent evidence to demonstrate that the husband suffered cruelty at the
hands of the wife. The husband failed to provide sufficient evidence to show
that the wife was engaged in a pattern of behavior that caused him immense
mental and emotional distress. The evidence on record suggests that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 02:45:00 pm )
action of the wife are only isolated incidents.
14. But, the main consideration which has weighed heavily with this
Court while considering the rival contentions is that, the parties have been
living separately since December 2014, i.e., almost for the past 11 years. It has
been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court that, the
institution of marriage is rooted in dignity, mutual respect and shared
companionship, and when these foundational aspects are irreparably lost,
forcing a couple to remain legally bound serves no beneficial purpose. In the
present case, it is apparent that due to complete detachment and the prolonged
estrangement, there has been an irretrievable break down of the marital bond,
which cannot be mended by any means. The length of separation and the
evident animosity between the parties make it clear that there is no possibility
of the marriage being revived. Therefore, forcing the parties to remain together
serves no purpose and only prolongs their misery. The appellant/wife and the
respondent/husband have been embroiled in legal disputes for years, with no
signs of reconciliation. The husband has expressed his desire to move on with
his life, while the wife, despite her assertions to the contrary, has failed to
demonstrate any genuine willingness to repair the relationship. As held by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 02:45:00 pm )
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Hurra vs. Rupa Bipin Zaveri reported in
(1997) 4 SCC 226 and Shilpa Sailesh vs, Varun Sreenivasan reported in
(2022) 15 SCC 754, prolonging a dead marriage serves no interest and only
perpetuates the agony of the parties involved.
15. In view of the above, this Court upholds the judgment of the Family
Court, granting a decree of divorce to the respondent/husband.
16. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
The judgment and decree dated 19.06.2017 made in HMOP No.331 of 2015
on the file of the Family Court, Erode, is upheld. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[C.V.K., J] [K.G.T., J]
09.01.2026
bga
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 02:45:00 pm )
To
1. The Judge, Family Court, Erode.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 02:45:00 pm )
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
bga
Pre-delivery Judgment in
09.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 02:45:00 pm )
