Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Case No: C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2021
Decided on: 22nd December, 2023
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
Facts of the Case
According to the husband, important information regarding his wife’s capacity to conceive was purposefully concealed from him, and she was already battling cancer when they got married. According to him, the wife abandoned him and mistreated him. Nevertheless, the Family Court denied the divorce petition, stating that there was insufficient evidence of cruelty and desertion in compliance with the law.
The couple had three pregnancies, all of which ended in termination, according to information obtained through a closer review of the parties’ admissions made during cross-examination on appeal. The woman was referred to the Adyar Cancer Institute when a cancer in her uterus was identified only during the fourth pregnancy. Third-grade ovarian cancer was the diagnosis made later. The case was reexamined in large part because of this disclosure.
Legal Provisions
In this appeal, the husband disputes the order denying the request for marriage dissolution citing cruelty, filed under Sections 13(1)(ia)(ib) and 5(ii)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Issues
Is the husband’s claim for divorce justified on the grounds of alleged suppression of the wife’s pre-existing cancer condition, misinformation about her ability to bear children, and the assertions of cruelty and desertion?
Courts analysis and decision
The husband’s appeal for a dissolution of marriage on the basis of mental cruelty, desertion, and suppression of material facts was dismissed by the Family Court, and this decision was recently upheld by the High Court. The court determined that the wife’s uterus was removed during their marriage due to an Ovarian Cancer diagnosis, and that this did not amount to mental abuse of her husband. The wives had no influence over this medical intervention, the judges emphasized, it was an act of fate or destiny. In addition, the court agreed with the Family Court’s conclusion that the cancer was not a pre-existing condition prior to marriage, emphasizing that the emergency uterine removal caused by life-threatening circumstances could not be considered mental cruelty that would warrant the dissolution of the marriage. Furthermore, the court disapproved of the description of the wife’s period of treatment from her parental house as desertion.
Furthermore, the court emphasized the husband’s acknowledgment during cross-examination that surrogacy or adoption could result in offspring, suggesting a possible solution to the child-bearing dilemma. The judges observed that although the spouse was characterized as having a kind heart, his viewpoint was tainted by some relatives who had selfish objectives. In the end, the court rejected the husband’s appeal and upheld the Family Court’s decision, acknowledging the particular circumstances and refusing to break a marriage fortunate enough to have been preserved by chance. The court suggested that the Sakthi Charitable Trust’s managing director get involved in order to support the parties financially while they pursued adoption or surrogacy, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Rupika Goundla
