Wife Secretly Marrying Daughter Without Informing Father Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court In Divorce Case

The Madras High Court has held that a wife secretly conducting the marriage of the couple’s daughter without informing the father can amount to mental cruelty under matrimonial law.

Granting divorce to a man, court held that the wife’s conduct in arranging the marriage without informing him, coupled with subsequent acts such as lodging complaints with police and his superior officers, disputes over the matrimonial home, and removal of belongings, cumulatively caused such mental agony that continuation of the marriage had become impossible.

On the issue of the couple’s daughter's marriage, the division bench observed that the “pain of the appellant as a father could be visualised” after he discovered that his daughter had been married off without his knowledge to the wife’s brother, who was a divorcee. Court said such conduct caused “extreme mental agony, pain and suffering” to the husband.

The bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Rajasekar passed the judgment while allowing appeals filed by G. Sridhar against orders of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai.

What Was The Husband’s Case?

The husband had approached the family court seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty. He stated that although the marriage had been solemnised in 1997 and two children were born out of the wedlock, the relationship deteriorated after the wife allegedly arranged the marriage of their daughter in Bengaluru without informing him.

According to him, the daughter had just turned 18 years old when she was married to the wife’s 32-year-old brother, who was already divorced. He claimed he came to know about the marriage only after the wife returned home a week later.

The husband further alleged that police complaints had earlier been lodged against the man who married the daughter and that the wife knowingly concealed the marriage from him because she anticipated his objection.

What Did The Wife Argue?

The wife denied all allegations of cruelty and contended that the daughter, having attained majority, was entitled to choose her life partner. She also maintained that the husband was aware of the marriage and had himself sent her to Bengaluru for the ceremony.

She further sought restitution of conjugal rights and accused the husband of preventing her from entering the matrimonial home after she returned from Bengaluru.

Why Did The High Court Disagree With The Family Court?

The high court said the family court failed to appreciate the emotional impact of the incident from the perspective of a father. The bench noted that the wife had neither denied conducting the marriage nor disputed that the husband had not been informed about it.

Answering whether such conduct amounted to mental cruelty, court held that a father would naturally want to be present at his daughter’s wedding and there was no justification for the wife acting “surreptitiously” in such an important family event.

The bench observed that the husband would have suffered “irreparable” agony after learning that his daughter had been married to a considerably older divorcee without his knowledge.

What Other Acts Were Treated As Mental Cruelty?

Court also took note of subsequent disputes between the parties. Court noted allegations that the wife had locked the matrimonial home, broken open the flat in the husband’s absence, removed documents and belongings, and lodged complaints before police authorities and the husband’s superior officers.

According to the bench, these acts independently and cumulatively caused “serious mental agony and pain” to the husband. Court said the complaints to police and higher officials had damaged his reputation and made it difficult for him to continue matrimonial life.

Court also noted that the flat purchased in the wife’s name had eventually been sold by her, with the remaining sale consideration retained after clearing the housing loan, thereby depriving the husband of the matrimonial residence.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Samar Ghosh Vs.Jaya Ghosh (2007) judgment, the high court reiterated that mental cruelty has to be assessed from the overall matrimonial circumstances and includes conduct causing deep anguish, frustration and emotional suffering.

Setting aside the family court’s orders, the high court allowed the husband’s appeals and dissolved the marriage.

Case Title: G. Sridhar v. S. Komala Kumari

Judgment Date: April 24, 2026

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