मातृत्व से परे: बच्चे न होने को क्रूरता नहीं माना, मद्रास उच्च न्यायालय ने तलाक की माँग खारिज

- Home

- /

- High Courts

- /

- Madras High Court

- /

- Marriage Cannot Be Reduced To Sole...

Marriage Cannot Be Reduced To Sole Object Of Procreation; Childlessness Not Cruelty: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

3 Oct 2026 12:30 PM IST

The Madras High Court recently refused to grant divorce to a husband on the ground of alleged cruelty, after noting that the wife had not failed in the matrimonial relationship just because the parties did not have a child. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 477] The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi held that the inability of parties to have a child cannot be termed as...

This is a premium content

Available exclusively to

Our subscribers

Subscribe Premium INR 1099+GST

Your support helps us to bring you more content at

an affordable subscription scheme !!!

All payment options available

The Madras High Court recently refused to grant divorce to a husband on the ground of alleged cruelty, after noting that the wife had not failed in the matrimonial relationship just because the parties did not have a child. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 477]

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi held that the inability of parties to have a child cannot be termed as matrimonial fault of the wife. The court stressed that the object of marriage cannot be reduced to that of procreation.

“Most importantly, the inability of the parties to have a child cannot, by itself, be converted into a matrimonial fault of the wife. Marriage cannot be reduced to the sole object of procreation. A spouse cannot be treated as having failed in the matrimonial relationship merely because the parties did not have a child,” the court observed.

The court observed that in the present case, the wife had suffered from fibroids and had subjected herself to treatment. Highlighting the physical discomfort involved in the medical process, the court remarked that the wife's willingness to go through the treatment, knowing about its challenges, itself showed her intention to preserve the marriage.

“Indeed, the very fact that the wife subjected herself to repeated and difficult fertility treatment demonstrates that she had not abandoned the matrimonial relationship. The treatment involved physical discomfort, repeated medical procedures, emotional uncertainty and considerable personal strain. Her willingness to undergo such treatment cannot be treated as conduct amounting to cruelty; rather, in the circumstances of the present case, it is a circumstance demonstrating her intention to preserve the marriage,” the court said.

The court was hearing the husband's appeal against the family court's order refusing to grant him divorce on alleged cruelty.

The marriage between the parties was solemnised in 2007. As per the husband, the initial six months of matrimonial life were peaceful, but the conduct and attitude of the wife changed after that. He argued that the wife started subjecting him to mental cruelty, considering her family superior to his, and making disparaging remarks about him and his family.

The husband argued that whenever he used to come from the office late, the wife used to unnecessarily suspect him and accused him of deliberately staying away. It was also submitted that the couple did not have a child and even after undergoing treatment, the wife did not conceive. The husband also alleged that on one instance, the wife publicly abused him, called him impotent, assaulted him with footwear, removed her thali and threw it at him, and thereafter left to her maternal home. According to the husband, the wife refused to return to the matrimonial home.

The wife denied the allegations. She submitted that the husband had the habit of consuming alcohol and she had only raised objections to him driving to home in a drunken state. She also denied having left the matrimonial home without informing the husband and submitted that the husband himself used to leave her at her sister's place whenever he used to travel out of town for work. The wife also denied allegations of having abused and assaulted the husband physically.

With respect to children, the wife admitted that she had undergone surgery and was undergoing medical treatment. She submitted that the absence of child was not due to any wilful refusal on her part to lead the matrimonial life with the husband.

The family court, after considering the materials, had concluded that the allegations raised by the husband was unsupported by any evidence. The court also noted that the wife was undergoing treatment and there was no conclusive proof to show that the wife was permanently incapable of having a child.

On appeal, the husband argued that the family court had placed undue emphasis on the absence of independent corroboration. It was argued that matrimonial cruelty usually occurred within four walls of matrimonial home and such cruelty could not be proved through independent eyewitnesses or police complaints.

While the court agreed that cruelty should be assessed by considering the matrimonial relationship as a whole and not by applying a rigid and mechanical formula, unproved allegations would not automatically become proves cruelty. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court, the court noted that while the cumulative effect of the conduct is relevant, the foundational facts constituting the conduct will have to be established. In the present case, the court noted that the husband had not established the cruelty allegations.

The court also placed emphasis on the conduct of the wife, who had gone through the medical procedure knowing the mental and physical effect it will have on her. The court held that a person who intended to abandon the matrimonial life would not ordinarily express willingness to resume matrimonial life.

Thus, finding no infirmity in the order of the family court, the court was not inclined to entertain the appeal and dismissed the same.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. R. Murali

Counsel for Respondent: Mrs. S. Vaidurya

Upasana Sajeev

Upasana Sajeev is a Principal Correspondent with LiveLaw, covering Madras High Court

Powered by Nyaya 247 News