In a recent Madras High Court decision, a Division Bench granted a husband’s appeal for divorce after finding that his wife had subjected him to mental cruelty. The judgment has drawn attention because the wife admitted to removing the thali chain (mangalsutra) when the couple separated.
[04/07, 11:32] sekarreporter1: Read ePaper
Lifestyle
Relationships
Health+
Style
Trending
Parenting
Soul Search
Beauty
Books
Recipes
Food News
Travel
Home & Garden
Events
Live
Not wearing Mangalsutra cruelty against husband? Madras High Court’s verdict which ended this marriage said, “Removal of thali chain is often treated as…”
TOI Lifestyle Desk / etimes.in / Updated: Jul 03, 2026, 14:24 IST
Representative image
4
Comments
In a recent Madras High Court decision, a Division Bench granted a husband’s appeal for divorce after finding that his wife had subjected him to mental cruelty. The judgment has drawn attention because the wife admitted to removing the thali chain (mangalsutra) when the couple separated.
ADVERTISING
That single fact sparked questions: Does taking off a thali automatically mean cruelty? Can it end a marriage by itself? Here’s what really happened and what made the Court grant the divorce:
Why the thali matters: Culture, symbolism and emotion
For many Hindus, especially in southern India, the thali or mangalsutra is not merely jewellery. It is a social and cultural symbol that signals marital status, continuity and the husband’s well‑being. Traditionally, married Hindu women do not remove the thali while their husbands are alive; removing it is commonly viewed as a profound and unsettling break with marital norms.
Because it carries such emotional weight, its removal can cause deep hurt and be read as a conscious rejection of the marriage.
But symbolism isn’t the same as law
The Madras High Court, comprising of Justices V.M. Velumani and S. Sountharwas, was careful not to convert social meaning into a blanket legal rule. The Bench made it clear that removing the thali is not, by itself, an automatic legal ground to dissolve a marriage or to prove cruelty under the law.
BY TABOOLASPONSORED LINKS
YOU MAY LIKE
The New Galaxy A57 5G | Awesome is for Everyone
Samsung India
Instead, the act may be one piece of evidence among many that helps a court draw inferences about the parties’ intentions and the health of the marriage.
The Bench said, as reported by Law Chakra:
“The removal of thali chain is often treated as an unceremonious act. We don’t say for a moment that removal of thali chain per se sufficient to put an end to the marital knot, but the said act of respondent is a piece of evidence in drawing an inference about the intentions of the parties.
The act of respondent in removal of thali chain at the time of separation coupled with various other evidences available on record, compel us to come to a definite conclusion that the parties have no intention to reconcile and continue the marital knot.”
What happened in this case
The husband, who served in the Indian Army, had asked for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. The couple got married on 30.08.1977 as per the Hindu rites and customs, and they had two children together. But, they had been living separately since 2011. The lower court refused to dissolve the marriage, finding the husband’s evidence insufficient; the husband then appealed to the Madras High Court.
Before the High Court, the husband alleged that his wife repeatedly suspected him, publicly accused him of having an extra‑marital relationship, humiliated him before colleagues, students and even the police, and thereby caused him severe emotional distress.
The Court examined the record and found no evidence to substantiate the wife’s allegations against the husband. More importantly, the Bench noted these accusations were made in public and could seriously damage his reputation and dignity.
The Court concluded that repeatedly casting aspersions on a spouse’s character and making unsubstantiated public allegations amounted to mental cruelty in this marriage.
That finding formed the core legal basis for granting the divorce.
Where the thali fit into the decision
During testimony, the wife admitted removing the thali chain when the parties separated, though she said she retained the thali itself. Her counsel argued that Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not require tying
[04/07, 11:32] sekarreporter1: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/relationships/not-wearing-mangalsutra-cruelty-against-husband-madras-high-courts-verdict-which-ended-this-marriage-said-removal-of-thali-chain-is-often-treated-as-/articleshow/132156627.cms
