Unsubstantiated Sexual Harassment Allegation Against Husband, Father-in-Law Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court
While granting divorce to a husband, the Madras High Court recently observed that making unsubstantiated sexual allegations against husband and father-in-law amounts to defamation which in turn constitutes mental cruelty. The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Sakthivel held as under, “As elaborated above, the unestablished sexual allegations made by the respondent...
While granting divorce to a husband, the Madras High Court recently observed that making unsubstantiated sexual allegations against husband and father-in-law amounts to defamation which in turn constitutes mental cruelty.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Sakthivel held as under,
“As elaborated above, the unestablished sexual allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner and his father, amounts to cruelty and thus, the petitioner has made out a case under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of H.M. Act. Points for consideration arising in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are answered accordingly. The petitioner is thus entitled to a Decree of divorce,” the court said.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by the husband against the order of the Family Court, dismissing his plea for divorce and allowing the wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights. The couple got married in 2015 and had a son, born in 2016.
The husband's case was that the wife refused to love with his parents and created conflicts demanding a separate household. It was also alleged that highly quarrelsome and used to verbally abuse him and his parents. He also submitted that the wife forced him to come home by 5pm and threatened him of committing suicide, because of which he had to quit his job as in an Engineering College.
The husband also alleged that the wife and her family had filed a false dowry case against him and his family forcing him to seek divorce. While the divorce case was pending, it was alleged that the wife had lodged a false complaint with derogatory and defamatory remarks against him and his father, alleging that his father had sexually harassed her and that the husband was flirting and being physically intimate with other girls.
The wife, however, claimed that the marital dispute was due to growing misunderstanding, family interference and ill advise from her in-laws. she claimed that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and the husband's family had lodged a false case against her and her family. She thus sought restitution of conjugal rights, considering the welfare of the child and the difficulty in continuing to stay at her parental home.
The family court had opined that the husband had not proved the allegations of mental cruelty. The family court noted that the withdrawal of the sexual harassment complaint by the wife could not lead to an inference that it was a false one. The family court had also noted that demanding a separate household while facing sexual harassment did not amount to cruelty.
The husband argued that the family court's order was unfair and that it had wrongly concluded the sexual harassment complaint to be prima facie true. He added that he had suffered severe mental stress due to the wife's actions and that there was no chance of reunion.
The court noted that though the wife had preferred a complaint raising allegations of sexual harassment, she had withdrawn the same. Though the wife contended that the complaint was withdrawn on husband's assurance that he would reunite, the court noted that the wife should have taken steps to prove the allegations when the husband failed to reunite.
“Be that as it may, whether the averments contained in Ex R.5 – Complaint are true or not is a matter for police investigation and the truth can be found only in the trial. But there was no investigation in the first place. The averments remain unestablished. The averments made in Ex-R.5 are of such nature that unless proved, they amount to defamation, which in turn constitutes to 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 said.
The court thus noted that though the wife was willing to resume the marital life, considering the mental cruelty that was inflicted by her upon the husband, the husband's unwillingness to reunite was justified. Noting that the parties could not reach a consensus even during mediation, the court was inclined to allow the husband's appeal and dissolve the marriage.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V. Kamalanathan for Mr. N. Manoharan
Counsel for Respondents: Ms. R. Mahalakshmi
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
Case No: CMA NOS.1038 AND 1039 OF 2024