The Madras High Court recently observed that making unsubstantiated sexual harassment allegations against one's spouse and father-in-law amounts to mental cruelty and constitutes a valid ground for granting divorce..A Division Bench of Justices J Nisha Banu and R Sakthivel made the observation while allowing a man's plea to divorce his wife on the ground of mental cruelty. The man (appellant) had told the High Court that his estranged wife had filed a police complaint accusing both him and his father of being perverts, and of having committed sexual harassment, only to withdraw this complaint later when the appellant promised to reunite with her. The appellant, however, did not reunite with her as promised. The Court observed that despite this, the wife did not reopen her complaint. This, the Court opined, left the sexual harassment allegations unproven. Unsubstantiated, defamatory allegations of sexual harassment can cause stigma and mental agony for the husband as well as his family, the Court observed.The Court added that in such a scenario, it was understandable that the husband was unwilling to reunite with his estranged wife."The averments (allegations of sexual harassment) remain unestablished. The averments made in Ex-R.5 (complaint) are of such nature that unless proved, they amount to defamation, which in turn constitutes mental cruelty. If really the said averments are true, the respondent ought to have taken prudent steps to prove her averments when the petitioner failed to reunite with her. Unsubstantiated or uncorroborated defamatory averments made in Ex-R.5, causes stigma and mental agony to the petitioner as well as his family, and in the facts and circumstances of this case amounts to cruelty," the Court held, while granting a divorce. .The appellant had alleged that his wife had stayed in the matrimonial home for only 51 days during the first two years of their marriage and spent the remaining time at her parental home. He also accused her of mistreating him, being excessively quarrelsome, and verbally abusive. Following the divorce petition, the wife filed a police complaint accusing her father-in-law of making sexual advances and claimed that her husband was a pervert who was involved with other women..The appellant-husband's counsel, Advocate V Kamalanathan, told the Court that the couple had married in September 2015 and had a child in July 2016. However, their marital relationship deteriorated soon after, prompting the husband to file for divorce in October 2017.Shortly afterwards, the wife filed a police complaint accusing him and his father of sexual harassment. The appellant's counsel argued that making such false and defamatory allegations amounted to subjecting his client to mental cruelty.Conversely, the wife claimed that she had withdrawn the complaint after her husband assured her that he would resume living with her. However, when he failed to honour his promise, she filed a plea for restitution of conjugal rights, which was subsequently allowed by the family court in 2023..The High Court, however, set aside the family court ruling, noting that the appellant had valid reasons for seeking a divorce. "His apprehensions about continuing the marital life with the respondent, even after the defamatory and derogatory allegations of sexual nature against him and his father, cannot be brushed aside simply. It has been eight years since the couple began living estrange and there has been no significant improvement so far," the Court observed.It, therefore, allowed the husband's appeal and granted him a divorce. The Court, however, did not interfere with the maintenance payments that the appellant had been ordered to make to his estranged wife and their child. "Though divorce is granted in favour of the (husband), maintenance rights of the respondent (wife) shall remain unaffected," the June 4 ruling said. .Advocates V Kamalanathan and N Manoharan appeared for the appellant/ husband.Advocate R Mahalakshmi appeared for the respondent/ wife..[Read Judgment]
