‘Childlessness cannot be treated as cruelty in a marriage’: Madras HC

Chennai: Childlessness cannot by itself be treated as cruelty in a marriage, and a wife cannot be held responsible for the failure to conceive merely because the couple has no children, the Madras High Court has ruled, according to a report by The Times of India

A division bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M.D. Sumathy made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a husband seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. The Madurai Bench upheld the Theni Family Court's earlier decision rejecting his divorce petition.

The court stressed that marriage cannot be reduced to a contract meant solely for reproduction. The absence of children, by itself, cannot be used to conclude that either spouse has failed in the marital relationship.

The couple married in June 2007. According to the husband, their relationship deteriorated after the initial years of marriage. He alleged that his wife suspected him when he returned home late, refused marital relations and subjected him to mental and physical harassment. He further claimed that she publicly insulted him by calling him impotent in 2016, assaulted him with footwear and a broom, removed her thali chain, tore photographs and left the matrimonial home.

The wife denied the allegations and told the court that she had been diagnosed with fibroid tumours in the uterus. In an effort to conceive and preserve the marriage, she underwent surgery and extensive fertility treatment.

The High Court found that the allegations of assault and cruelty had not been established. It agreed with the Family Court that merely accumulating unproven allegations could not transform them into legally established cruelty.

The bench also highlighted the physical and emotional burden of fertility treatment on women. Hormonal injections, repeated scans and blood tests, physical discomfort, anxiety and repeated cycles of hope followed by disappointment can impose considerable strain. The court noted that a woman who repeatedly undergoes such painful procedures to conceive a child and build a family with her husband cannot reasonably be portrayed as having abandoned the marriage or subjected her husband to cruelty.

While both spouses may experience the emotional distress associated with being childless, the physical burden of fertility treatment is borne primarily by the woman, the court observed. The pain and emotional distress associated with repeated medical procedures cannot simply be converted into allegations supporting a divorce claim.

The court also rejected the argument that a prolonged period of separation necessarily proves that a marriage has broken down irretrievably. Taking into account the wife's stated willingness to continue living with her husband, the bench dismissed the appeal.

Advocate R. Murali appeared for the husband, while Advocate S. Vaidurya represented the wife.