Introduction:

In a recent case before the Madras High Court, a plea for dissolution of marriage on grounds of alleged mental cruelty due to the wife’s removal of her uterus following an ovarian cancer diagnosis was dismissed. The bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji upheld the Family Court’s decision, observing that the medical intervention did not constitute cruelty, as it was an act of fate rather than intentional conduct by the wife. The case involved a husband’s plea for divorce citing mental cruelty, suppression of material facts, and desertion by the wife.

Arguments:

The husband alleged that the wife had concealed her ovarian cancer before marriage and was unable to bear children, constituting mental cruelty and desertion. However, the court noted during cross-examination that the wife’s cancer diagnosis came after three failed pregnancies, where malignancy was discovered during the fourth pregnancy. The court found no evidence supporting the husband’s claim of pre-existing cancer before marriage and acknowledged the possibility of having children through surrogacy or adoption, as admitted by the husband.

Court’s Judgement:

The Madras High Court rejected the husband’s plea, emphasizing that the removal of the wife’s uterus due to a life-threatening emergency did not amount to mental cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage. It noted the husband’s admission about alternative options for progeny and highlighted the influence of vested interest relatives poisoning the husband’s perspective. The court declined to sever the marital tie, considering the circumstances, and instead recommended financial aid from the Sakthi Charitable Trust for the couple’s surrogacy or adoption endeavors.