https://24law.in/story/wife-staying-at-parents-house-during-pregnancy-and-after-childbirth-while-husband-was-abroad-cannot [17/05, 11:53] Meta AI: *Madras High Court: Wife staying at parents’ house during pregnancy/after childbirth while husband is abroad ≠ desertion* Bench: Justice CV Karthikeyan & Justice K Rajasekar | May 2026_ *1. Case facts* 1. *Marriage*: Jan 2012. Husband went to Singapore for work after 7 months.

[17/05, 11:53] sekarreporter1: https://24law.in/story/wife-staying-at-parents-house-during-pregnancy-and-after-childbirth-while-husband-was-abroad-cannot
[17/05, 11:53] Meta AI: *Madras High Court: Wife staying at parents’ house during pregnancy/after childbirth while husband is abroad ≠ desertion*
_24law.in report | Bench: Justice CV Karthikeyan & Justice K Rajasekar | May 2026_

*1. Case facts*
1. *Marriage*: Jan 2012. Husband went to Singapore for work after 7 months.
2. *Dispute*: Husband sent money to his mother. Wife allegedly upset, went to parents’ house. Delivered child there and continued staying post-childbirth.
3. *Husband’s divorce plea*: Filed under _Sec 13(1)(i-a) cruelty_ + _13(1)(i-b) desertion_ HMA in Tirupur Family Court. Alleged:
– Wife left matrimonial home.
– Didn’t invite his family to baby shower.
– Was in contact with another man.
4. *Family Court*: Dismissed divorce petition. Husband appealed to Madras HC.

*2. Madras HC ruling – May 2026*
*Held*:
1. _“She had to necessarily go to her mother’s house for the birth of the child. She had to remain in her mother’s house even after child birth. That cannot be stated to be an act of desertion.”_
2. *Husband abroad*: _“Since the appellant was not in this country, he cannot now complain about the conduct of the respondent.”_
3. *False allegation*: Husband’s claim of wife’s contact with another man was _baseless, without evidence_. Court: _“This false allegation would have naturally affected the respondent… It is not an act of desertion. The allegation raised by the appellant herein had driven the respondent to go to her mother’s house.”_
4. *Baby shower claim*: _“No material to show that such a function was actually conducted.”_ Wife said no function happened 2ab4[husband][wife] 2ab4c55c

*3. Key legal principles laid down*
1. *Childbirth ≠ desertion*: Staying at parents’ house for delivery/post-partum care is _“natural and necessary action”_, not abandonment.
2. *Context matters*: If husband is abroad, expecting wife to stay alone in matrimonial home post-delivery is unreasonable.
3. *False allegations = mental cruelty by husband*: Baseless affair claims _“naturally affected”_ wife and justified her staying with mother.
4. *Stray incidents*: _“Stray incident cannot be a ground of dissolution of marriage. They are only scratches in the marital life.”_ c55c2ab4ee3e

*4. Wider Madras HC pattern on matrimonial law*
**Issue** **HC Stand**
Wife at parents’ house *“Married woman cannot be presumed to have disowned residential rights at her parents’ house”*
False cases by wife If for *“vindication of her rights, it can never be considered mental cruelty”*
Maintenance *“Husband, children have legal and moral duty to maintain wife/mother… no amount can bear the pain endured at childbirth”*
084a

*5. Why this matters – May 2026*
1. *NRI marriages*: With many TN men abroad, protects wives from _ex-parte_ desertion claims.
2. *Gender-neutral reading*: Rejects patriarchal view that wife _must_ stay in matrimonial home. Recognizes childbirth logistics.
3. *False allegation trend*: Courts cracking down on husbands using _“affair”_ claims to get divorce.

*Bottom line*: Madras HC dismissed husband’s appeal. Staying at mother’s house for delivery/post-partum care when husband is abroad is necessity, not desertion. Baseless allegations by husband drove wife to parents’ house – that’s his fault, not hers. ee3e

Want the full text of Sec 13(1)(i-a), 13(1)(i-b) HMA or how this impacts NRI divorce cases?
[17/05, 11:53] sekarreporter1: Dark Mode
English
Login
Logo

Search here

Share This
Wife Staying At Parents’ House During Pregnancy And After Childbirth While Husband Was Abroad Cannot Be Treated As Desertion: Madras High Court
24Law
May 16, 2026 3:07 PM
Wife Staying At Parents’ House During Pregnancy And After Childbirth While Husband Was Abroad Cannot Be Treated As Desertion: Madras High Court
Sangeetha Prathap
The Madras High Court has held that a wife going to her parental home for childbirth and continuing to stay there after delivery cannot be treated as an act of desertion when the husband was abroad and had failed to financially support her and the child. A Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Rajasekar dismissed an appeal filed by the husband challenging the Family Court’s refusal to grant divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Also Read: Madras High Court Quashes Hate Speech Case Against VCK Chief Thol Thirumavalavan Over Delay In Filing Chargesheet, Absence Of Mandatory Sanction

The Court observed: “She had to necessarily go to her mother’s house for the birth of the child. She had to remain in her mother’s house even after the child birth. That cannot be stated to be an act of desertion.”

The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 30.01.2012. According to the husband, he left for Singapore seven months after marriage for employment and used to send money to his mother, which was allegedly known to the wife. He claimed that the wife became upset because the money was not sent directly to her and thereafter left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents.

The husband further alleged that after the wife conceived and later gave birth to a girl child on 06.01.2015, he was not informed about the birth of the child and that neither he nor his parents were invited for the baby shower ceremony. He also alleged that the wife demanded return of 18 sovereigns of gold given at the time of marriage and lodged police complaints against him and his family members. On these allegations, he sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The wife denied the allegations and contended that she had been neglected by both the husband and her in-laws after marriage. She stated that though the husband was employed abroad, he did not financially support her and instead sent all his earnings only to his mother. She also asserted that she was compelled to initiate maintenance proceedings as she was solely taking care of the child with considerable difficulty.

The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition holding that the wife was justified in staying at her parental home after childbirth and that neither cruelty nor desertion had been established. Challenging the same, the husband approached the High Court. Before the High Court, the husband argued that the parties had been living separately for nearly ten years and that there existed deep-rooted animosity between them. He also contended that despite issuance of legal notices, the wife never returned to the matrimonial home.

The High Court, however, found no merit in the husband’s contentions. The Bench observed that it was an admitted fact that the husband used to send his income only to his mother and not to the wife. The Court remarked that after marriage, the husband was expected to maintain a separate household and financially support his wife. The Court observed: “The appellant should have recognised her status as a wife and should have atleast forwarded a portion of the surplus amount to her rather than sending the entire amount to his mother.”

The Bench further held that the wife’s decision to stay with her parents during pregnancy and after childbirth was natural and justified, particularly when the husband himself was not present in India.

Rejecting the husband’s allegation regarding the baby shower function, the Court noted that there was no evidence whatsoever to establish that any such function had actually been conducted. The consistent stand of the wife was that no formal baby shower ceremony had taken place. The High Court also took note of the maintenance proceedings initiated by the wife and observed that the very filing of such proceedings indicated that she was the one being deserted by the husband rather than vice versa.

The Bench further criticised the husband for making unsubstantiated allegations against the wife regarding her alleged closeness with another man. The Court noted that no particulars, including the name or phone number of the alleged person, had been disclosed either in pleadings or evidence. The Court observed: “This false allegation would have naturally affected the respondent herein. There was no necessity for the appellant herein to levy such a baseless allegation as against his own wife who had just given birth to a child.”

The Bench held that such allegations would naturally cause emotional distress to the wife and could not be used by the husband to allege desertion. On the issue of cruelty, the Court held that the incidents relied upon by the husband were merely stray incidents and could not constitute mental cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage. The Court observed: “Taking an overall view of the entire issue, we hold that stray incident cannot be a ground of dissolution of marriage. They are only scratches in the marital life.”

Also Read: Teacher Cannot Be Prosecuted Under POCSO For Classroom Disciplinary Action In Absence Of Sexual Intent Or Supporting Allegations: Madras High Court

Holding that the husband was attempting to take advantage of his own faults to seek divorce, the High Court declined to interfere with the Family Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Appearance
Mr. K. Ravi Anantha Padmanaban for Mr. B. Thirumalai, for the Appellant.

Mr. T. Balaji Thirumoorthy, for the Respondent.

Cause Title: A v. B

Case No.: C.M.A. No.706 of 2023

Coram: Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Rajasekar

Tags
Madras High Court Justice CV Karthikeyan Justice K Rajasekar Desertion
Comment / Reply From
Comments
this is message…

Related Posts

HIGH COURTS
Madras HC Directs Addition Of Foster Parents’ Names In Woman’s Birth Certificate, Says Right To Identity Is Part Of Privacy And Dignity

HIGH COURTS
‘1098’ Child Helpline, Child Welfare Mechanism Cannot Be Misused To Coerce Children Into False Sexual Abuse Allegations Against Fathers: Madras High Court

HIGH COURTS
Preventive Detention Under Goondas Act No Bar To Grant Bail In Criminal Case: Madras High Court Grants Bail To Savukku Shankar

HIGH COURTS
Madras High Court Restrains MLA Elected By One-Vote Margin From Floor Test, Says Courts Cannot Ignore Disputed Mandate Affecting Fate Of Government

HIGH COURTS
Madras High Court Quashes Hate Speech Case Against VCK Chief Thol Thirumavalavan Over Delay In Filing Chargesheet, Absence Of Mandatory Sanction

HIGH COURTS
Teacher Cannot Be Prosecuted Under POCSO For Classroom Disciplinary Action In Absence Of Sexual Intent Or Supporting Allegations: Madras High Court

HIGH COURTS
Madras High Court Dismisses Challenge To 2013 District Judge Recruitment, Upholds Appointment Of 23 Judicial Officers

HIGH COURTS
‘While He May Persuade, He Cannot Pressure; While He May Protect Rights Of Client, He Cannot Obstruct Course Of Justice’: Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Proceedings Against Madurai Lawyers
Stay Connected
Newsletter
Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!

Email Address

Newsletter
Subscribe to our newsletter

Email Address
Download App

© 2026 24Law.in – All Rights Reserved.
[17/05, 11:53] Meta AI: *Wife Staying At Parents’ House During Pregnancy & After Childbirth While Husband Was Abroad Cannot Be Treated As Desertion: Madras High Court*
_24Law.in | May 16, 2026 | C.M.A. No.706 of 2023 | Bench: Justice C.V. Karthikeyan & Justice K. Rajasekar_

*1. Case snapshot*
*Parties*: A (Husband) vs B (Wife)
*Marriage*: 30.01.2012
*Dispute*: Husband filed divorce under _Sec 13(1)(i-a) cruelty_ + _13(1)(i-b) desertion_ HMA. Tirupur Family Court dismissed it. Husband appealed to Madras HC.

*2. Husband’s allegations*
1. *Left for Singapore* 7 months after marriage. Sent money to _his mother_, not wife.
2. *Wife upset* over money issue, left matrimonial home for parents’ house.
3. *Childbirth*: Daughter born 06.01.2015. Claims he/his parents _not informed, not invited to baby shower_.
4. *Gold + Police complaint*: Wife demanded 18 sovereigns given at marriage, filed police complaints.
5. *10-year separation*: Claimed deep-rooted animosity; wife didn’t return despite legal notices.

*3. Wife’s defence*
1. *Neglected*: Husband + in-laws didn’t support her financially or emotionally after marriage.
2. *No money to her*: Husband sent _all earnings only to his mother_ despite being employed abroad.
3. *Forced to file maintenance*: Solely taking care of child _“with considerable difficulty”_.
4. *No baby shower*: Denied any formal function took place.

*4. Madras HC findings – appeal dismissed*
*On desertion*:
1. _“She had to necessarily go to her mother’s house for the birth of the child. She had to remain in her mother’s house even after the child birth. That cannot be stated to be an act of desertion.”_
2. *Husband abroad*: _“Since the appellant was not in this country, he cannot now complain about the conduct of the respondent.”_

*On financial neglect*:
1. *Admitted fact*: Husband sent income _only to mother, not wife_.
2. *HC rebuke*: _“The appellant should have recognised her status as a wife and should have atleast forwarded a portion of the surplus amount to her rather than sending the entire amount to his mother.”_ Husband expected to maintain _“separate household”_ after marriage.

*On baby shower*: _“No evidence whatsoever”_ function was conducted. Wife’s stand – no formal ceremony – accepted.

*On false allegations*: Husband accused wife of closeness with another man but gave _no name, phone number, or particulars_. Court: _“This false allegation would have naturally affected the respondent… There was no necessity for the appellant herein to levy such a baseless allegation as against his own wife who had just given birth to a child.”_ Held wife’s move to parents’ house was due to husband’s conduct.

*On cruelty*: Incidents cited were _“stray incidents”_. Court: _“They are only scratches in the marital life”_ – not ground for divorce.

*Maintenance angle*: Wife filing maintenance showed _she was deserted by husband_, not vice versa.

*5. Key legal takeaways*
1. *Childbirth at parents’ ≠ desertion*: Natural/necessary when husband abroad. Desertion needs _animus deserendi_ – intent to permanently end cohabitation.
2. *Financial duty*: Husband must support wife directly, not just mother. Sending entire salary to mother while wife struggles = fault of husband.
3. *Baseless affair claims backfire*: Making unsubstantiated allegations against wife, especially post-childbirth, is mental cruelty _by husband_. Justifies wife staying away.
4. *Stray incidents rule*: _“Stray incident cannot be a ground of dissolution of marriage.”_

*6. Appearances*
*For Appellant*: Mr. K. Ravi Anantha Padmanaban for Mr. B. Thirumalai
*For Respondent*: Mr. T. Balaji Thirumoorthy

*Bottom line*: HC held husband _“attempting to take advantage of his own faults to seek divorce.”_ Appeal dismissed. For NRI marriages, court signaled you can’t leave wife unsupported in India, then claim desertion when she goes to parents for childbirth.

Want the full judgment PDF or comparison with SC’s view on desertion in _Samar Ghosh v Jaya Ghosh_?