Removing Thali Madras High Court Madras High Court upheld divorce citing mental cruelty. By – Salil Tiwari | 2 June 2026 2:56 PM Madras High Court granted divorce holding that a wife’s false affair complaints to her husband’s Army superiors, thali removal, and 30-year separation amounted to cruelty. The Madras High Court at Madurai Bench recently upheld a decree dissolving a marriage that had subsisted for nearly five decades, holding that the wife’s repeated

by Sekar Reporter · June 3, 2026

Search TOP STORIES NEWS UPDATES COLUMNS |DEAL·BEAT BAR SPEAKS ARTICLES VIDEOS More TOP STORIES NEWS UPDATES COLUMNS |DEAL·BEAT BAR SPEAKS ARTICLES VIDEOS More FOLLOW US Home/News updates Removing Thali, False Affair Complaints to Army Bosses Is Cruelty: Madras High Court Madras High Court upheld divorce citing mental cruelty. By – Salil Tiwari | 2 June 2026 2:56 PM Madras High Court granted divorce holding that a wife’s false affair complaints to her husband’s Army superiors, thali removal, and 30-year separation amounted to cruelty. The Madras High Court at Madurai Bench recently upheld a decree dissolving a marriage that had subsisted for nearly five decades, holding that the wife’s repeated allegations of extramarital affairs against her husband before his superior officers in the Army, her admitted removal of the thali (a sacred chain worn by wife as a token of having married), and the parties’ separation for over 30 years cumulatively constituted mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The bench of Justice P. Vadamalai dismissed a second appeal filed by the wife and confirmed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, both of which had granted divorce to the husband. The parties married on August 30, 1977 and have two children. The husband, a retired Army personnel, sought divorce on grounds of cruelty, desertion and conversion of religion. According to him, the wife repeatedly accused him of maintaining illicit relationships with several women, sent complaints regarding the same to Army authorities and later removed her thali after embracing Christianity. Also Read| ‘Doubting husband’s character, making baseless allegations of extra marital affair before his colleagues amount to cruelty’: Madras High Court The wife disputed these allegations and contended that it was the husband who had relationships with other women. She claimed that complaints and criminal proceedings arose because of his conduct and argued that the allegations relied upon by him were decades old and had been condoned when the parties resumed cohabitation after his retirement. Why did the high court treat complaints made to the husband’s seniors at work as cruelty? Answering this question, court noted that the wife had herself admitted during cross-examination that she had complained to the husband’s superior officers in the Army alleging that he had relationships with other women. Court observed that admissions are the best form of evidence and do not require further corroboration. It further noted that the wife had failed to establish the truth of her allegations through independent evidence. Also Read| Madras HC Slams Customs for Seizing Sri Lankan Woman’s ‘Thaalikodi’, Calls It Annihilation of Hindu Culture Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021), the high court held that defamatory complaints made by one spouse to the employer or superior authorities of the other spouse, which have the potential to damage reputation and career prospects, amount to mental cruelty. Court observed that a spouse whose dignity and reputation are undermined before colleagues and superiors cannot reasonably be expected to continue the matrimonial relationship. Court also rejected the wife’s argument that the alleged acts stood condoned because the parties lived together after the husband retired from service in 1991. It found that disputes regarding the husband’s alleged affairs continued even thereafter and eventually led to criminal proceedings between the parties. Consequently, court held that the allegations were not isolated historical incidents but part of continuing matrimonial discord. What did the court say about removal of the thali and alleged conversion to Christianity? Court recorded that the wife admitted in evidence that she had removed her thali and was not wearing gold ornaments. Court observed that the removal of the thali carries social and symbolic significance in Hindu marriages and could amount to mental cruelty. Also Read| ‘Absolute Violence’: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Over Religious Coercion Court further noted that documents relating to the daughter’s marriage and other circumstances were relied upon by the husband to support his allegation that the wife had adopted Christianity. While documentary evidence regarding formal conversion was limited, court held that the allegation could not be brushed aside in light of the overall evidence on record. It ultimately concluded that removal of the thali reflected mental cruelty. Can long separation be considered while deciding cruelty? The wife had argued that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce and can be invoked only by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. The high court agreed that irretrievable breakdown is not an independent ground available to trial courts or high courts. However, it clarified that prolonged separation and complete absence of cohabitation can be relevant factors in determining whether continuation of the marriage itself causes mental cruelty. Noting that the parties had been living separately since around 1996, had remained apart for more than three decades and that the wife had never sought restitution of conjugal rights, court held that the prolonged separation reinforced the husband’s case of mental cruelty. Holding that the husband had successfully established cruelty on multiple counts, court dismissed the wife’s appeal and confirmed the divorce decree granted by the courts below. Case Title: Xxx vs. Yyy Judgment Date: June 1, 2026 Bench: Justice P. Vadamalai