P v S, 2026

The marriage between the husband and wife took place in January 2012.

After around seven months of marriage, the husband moved to Singapore for employment.

The husband used to send his earnings to his mother instead of directly supporting the wife.

The wife became aggrieved by the lack of financial and emotional support.

During her pregnancy, the wife stayed at her parental home for care and support.

A girl child was subsequently born to the couple.

The husband alleged that the wife did not invite him or his family to the baby shower ceremony.

The husband further alleged that the wife demanded return of 18 sovereigns of gold given at the time of marriage.

The husband accused the wife of maintaining close contact with another male person.

The wife denied the allegations and contended that neither the husband nor the in-laws cared for her or the child.

The wife filed a maintenance case seeking financial assistance for herself and the child.

The husband filed a divorce petition alleging mental cruelty and desertion.

The Family Court, Tiruppur dismissed the divorce petition.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the husband filed an appeal before the Madras High Court.

The Madras High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the Family Court’s decision refusing divorce.

The court held that the wife going to her mother’s house for childbirth was natural and justified.

The court observed that since the husband was abroad during the relevant period, he could not accuse the wife of desertion.

The bench stated that remaining at the parental home after childbirth could not legally amount to desertion.

The court strongly criticised the husband for making baseless allegations regarding the wife’s relationship with another man.

The judges observed that such allegations would naturally hurt the wife emotionally and force her to stay away from the matrimonial home.

The court found no evidence proving that a baby shower ceremony had actually taken place.

The court noted that the wife had filed a maintenance application because she was neglected and not financially supported.

The bench remarked that the husband failed in his marital obligation by sending all surplus income to his mother instead of supporting his wife.

The court held that the husband could not take advantage of his own fault and blame the wife for the marital discord.

The court described the disputes between the parties as mere “scratches in marital life” insufficient for dissolution of marriage.

The judgment reinforces the principle that matrimonial obligations include emotional and financial support to the spouse.

The court adopted a practical and socially sensitive approach regarding childbirth and maternal care.

The ruling clarifies that a wife staying at her parental home during pregnancy cannot automatically be treated as desertion.

The court emphasised that desertion requires intentional abandonment without reasonable cause.

The judgment discourages spouses from making reckless and defamatory allegations against each other in matrimonial disputes.

The bench applied the equitable principle that a party cannot take advantage of his own wrong.

The decision strengthens protections for women facing neglect and emotional harassment in marriage.

The judgment reflects judicial recognition of the realities faced by women during pregnancy and child-rearing.

The ruling contributes to a balanced interpretation of cruelty and desertion under matrimonial law.

The case may serve as an important precedent in future matrimonial disputes involving allegations of desertion after childbirth.