26 years apart: Madras High Court dissolves marriage, but sets conditions over property

The bench pointed out that the parties have been separate for more than 26 years. It expressed displeasure that even when the daughters’ marriages were performed, the petitioner was not even associated with them. “The petitioner (husband) is aged about 63 years. The respondent (wife) must be aged about 56 years. There is zero possibility of reconciliation or reunion. No purpose would be served in keeping the marital tie alive,” the court remarked.

Marriage strained after 4 years

The petitioner-husband and respondent married in May 1995 through a self-respect marriage and had two daughters. According to the Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967, self-respect marriages are solemnised in the presence of relatives, friends, or other persons. The amendment did away with the need for priests or rituals, which were otherwise required to complete wedding ceremonies.

Justices G R Swaminathan and M D Sumathi expressed displeasure over the man’s baseless allegations against his wife’s character, which he later withdrew.

The couple’s marital relationship later deteriorated, following which the husband left the matrimonial home in November 1999. He filed a divorce petition in 2000, which was transferred to the family court. After hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record, the family court dismissed his divorce petition in April 2022, leading him to approach the high court.

Divorce only after fulfilling obligations: Order

The court also expressed displeasure over the petitioner’s baseless allegations against his wife’s character, which he later withdrew and apologised for before the court. It noted that the parties had been living separately for more than 26 years, and the husband had not even participated in his daughters’ marriages. Given the ages of the man and his wife, and their prolonged separation, the court found zero possibility of reconciliation or reunion.

The high court also directed the husband to execute a release deed in respect of the jointly held five-cent property in favour of the wife. Further, regarding his 1.7-cent ancestral property, the petitioner undertook to give her two-thirds of the sale amount, after expenses, within three months.

The judges made the fulfilment of these two property-related obligations a condition for the divorce decree to come into force. It noted that the petitioner was already subject to a maintenance order and had accumulated Rs 3 lakh in arrears. On the date of hearing, he brought a demand draft for the entire outstanding amount, which was handed over to the respondent’s counsel.

The court concluded that no purpose would be served by keeping the marital tie alive and therefore dissolved the marriage, subject to the fulfilment of the financial and property-related obligations towards the wife.