Madaras HC held that inability of the wife to conceive is not a ground for granting divorce for cruelty
Introduction
The Madras High Court has ruled that if the wife is unable to conceive, it will not be enough to prove her to be guilty of matrimonial violence and will not be a basis for granting a divorce. The Court stated that marriage is not just about procreation and that the couple’s childlessness cannot simply be considered as a fault of the woman’s marriage.
A Division Bench presided over by Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi made these observations in dismissing an appeal filed by a husband in the case relating to divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Bench agreed with the Family Court on refusing to declare the marriage a nullity.
Background of the Case
The husband and wife had been wed in June of 2007. The husband said that the marriage was once harmonious but after some time, it was not. He claimed that his wife embarrassed him, suspected him when he came home late from work, left the marital home often and refused him marital companionship.
He also claimed that she had called him ‘impotent’ in public during June 2016 and beat him with a broom and footwear and took off her thali and tore the photographs before leaving the matrimonial home.
The wife refused to admit to the charges. She said that she was a woman who had suffered surgery for fibroids and fertility treatment, hoping to have a child and maintain the marital bond.
Court’s Approach to Cruelty
The High Court concluded that the husband had failed to sufficiently prove that he had been assaulted, humiliated and abandoned by his wife. The Court made it clear that cruelty must be judged from the point of view of the overall relationship and not by the collection of unproven charges.
The Bench did not agree that an allegation is strengthened by a group of unsubstantiated allegations being made at once. The husband was, therefore, unable to claim the cause of childlessness as a basis for proving cruelty.
The Court specifically referenced the physical and emotional impacts of fertility treatment, such as the hormones, multiple scans, blood tests, invasive treatment, pain and anxiety, and the cycle of hope and loss. The Court noted that the wife’s consent to the treatment indicated her intent to save the marriage and not end it.
What is marriage if it’s not for procreation?
The decision has implications for matrimonial law in general. The Court said it had made a categorical observation that marriage is not just about procreation. The failure of a married couple to give birth to a child can’t be considered as a failure in the conjugal or marital relationship.
The ruling also follows the rule that unless there is sound medical evidence, it is not assumed that infertility or inability to conceive is the fault of one spouse.
The Court also dismissed the idea that the length of separation, alone, amounted to cruelty or irretrievable breakdown, especially if the wife expressed her readiness to restore the union.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court’s decision upholds a fundamental rule in marriage law, namely that the absence of children doesn’t constitute in itself cruelty. Cruelty is a condition that must be legally established and rendered it unreasonable to live with a spouse, and inability to conceive can not just be made a fault in the marriage.
Judgment thus sent the notion that the essence of marriage is the production of children to the dustbin of history, elevating dignity, companionship and the whole marriage above it.
