‘Man’s attitude towards disabled wife real disability’: Madras High Court denies divorce

“The true disability in this case is the inability of the husband to acknowledge the positive side of the wife. To ostracise or discriminate a person merely on account of disability is contrary to the constitutional values of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. It is for this reason that nations across the world have enacted legislative and policy measures to safeguard the rights of persons with disabilities and to ensure they also participate in the mainstream of society. The United Nations has also adopted various international instruments recognizing and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. India has, in furtherance of its constitutional obligations and international commitments, enacted comprehensive legislation to secure and protect the rights, dignity, and equal opportunities to persons with disabilities,” the court said on July 28.

The couple married on June 24, 2010, and were blessed with a son in July 2011. After the family court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition on September 15, 2020, he challenged the decision before the high court, which upheld the family court’s findings in its judgment delivered on July 28, 2026.

Justices N Anand Venkatesh and K K Ramakrishnan said that a physical disability caused by an accident cannot be treated as making a person unfit for marriage. (Image enhanced using AI)

Husband alleged concealment, cruelty

The husband contended that before the marriage, the wife had sustained serious injuries in a road accident that left her with a permanent physical disability. He alleged that she and her family deliberately suppressed this fact, along with her alleged treatment for depression, before the marriage.

He further claimed that she failed to discharge household responsibilities, frequently quarrelled with him, threatened to commit suicide and caused him severe mental agony, constituting mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He also argued that the parties had been living separately since August 2013 and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.

The wife denied suppressing any material facts and maintained that the husband was fully aware of her injuries before the marriage. She asserted that the marriage was consummated, they led a normal marital life, had a child and that she was always willing to continue the matrimonial relationship.

Disability can’t dissolve marriage

• Rejecting the husband’s principal contention, the bench held that a physical disability caused by an accident cannot be treated as making a person unfit for married life.
• It added that accepting such a proposition would endorse a discriminatory and inhuman approach towards persons with disabilities.
• “To recognise disability, by itself, as a ground for divorce in the facts of the present case would amount to legitimising discrimination against persons with disabilities and would undermine the very object sought to be achieved by the constitutional guarantees and the statutory protections afforded to them,” it said.
• The judges further remarked, “Physical disability or the consequences of an accidental injury do not render a person incapable of leading a happy and fulfilling matrimonial life.”
• They emphasised that countless persons with disabilities successfully discharge their marital and family responsibilities with dignity, mutual affection and commitment.
• The bench said spouses are expected to show compassion and support to one another during unforeseen adversities instead of treating disability with contempt.
• “Disability cannot be seen as a crime or sin and cannot, by itself, diminish the dignity or worth of an individual,” the court said, adding that the real disability in the present case was the husband’s inability to recognise the positive qualities of his wife despite her physical condition.
• The court said that the stand taken by the husband that the wife was unfit for matrimonial life merely because she had sustained a hip fracture prior to the marriage reflects an unfortunate, insensitive attitude and hard heartedness.
• The insistence of the husband on seeking dissolution of marriage solely on account of the wife’s physical disability also shows lack of empathy and compassion towards a spouse became the victim of an unfortunate accident.
• Such an approach is inconsistent with the humane values of a matrimonial relationship. Such a contention is not only legally unsustainable but also contrary to the constitutional values of dignity, equality and inclusiveness, it said.
• “A person who has suffered accidental injuries cannot, by that reason alone, be branded as unfit for married life,” said the court.

No proof of cruelty

The high court found that the husband had failed to establish any legally recognised ground for divorce. It noted that the parties lived together after marriage, the marriage was consummated, they had a child, and the wife even conceived a second time before suffering a medically necessitated abortion.

There was no evidence that her disability had affected the marital relationship or prevented her from fulfilling her matrimonial obligations.

The bench also found no medical evidence supporting the allegation that the wife suffered from depression and held that allegations of repeated suicide threats remained unsubstantiated. It concluded that the husband had neither pleaded nor proved any specific acts amounting to mental cruelty.

Holding that the husband had failed to prove mental cruelty or any other statutory ground for dissolution of marriage, the high court dismissed the appeal, affirmed the family court‘s order refusing divorce and closed the wife’s application seeking to produce additional documents as unnecessary.