Divorce — Cruelty and Childlessness · 30 September 2026
A v. S: Madras High Court Holds Childlessness Is Not Proof of Cruelty and Refuses Husband's Divorce
High Court of Judicature at Madras (Madurai Bench) · 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 477; 2026:MHC:4039; CMA(MD) No. 724 of 2022
Download the full judgment (PDF)
Enter your name and WhatsApp number to get the download link. We'll also let you know on WhatsApp if we can help with this case — filing, tracking, or anything else — no obligation either way.
We use this only to send the link and to follow up about this case. See our privacy policy.
The couple married in 2007. The husband said the first six months were peaceful, after which his wife began to treat him with mental cruelty: she considered her family superior to his, made disparaging remarks, suspected him when he came home late, and on one occasion publicly abused him, called him impotent, hit him with footwear and threw off her thali before leaving for her maternal home and refusing to return. He also relied on the fact that they had no child despite treatment. The wife denied the allegations, said the husband drank and she had only objected to his driving home drunk, and that he himself used to leave her at her sister's place when he travelled. She said she had had a surgery for fibroids and was undergoing treatment, and that the absence of a child was not due to any refusal on her part. The Family Court found his allegations unsupported by evidence and held there was no conclusive proof she was permanently unable to conceive. The husband appealed, arguing cruelty happens within four walls and cannot be proved by independent witnesses.
A Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi dismissed the appeal. It agreed that cruelty is to be judged from the relationship as a whole and not by a rigid formula, but held, relying on Supreme Court authority, that the foundational facts of the conduct must still be established, and the husband had not established them. It held that the wife had not failed in the marriage because the couple had no child, and observed that her willingness to undergo painful medical treatment showed an intention to preserve the marriage, as a person meaning to abandon the marriage would not ordinarily express willingness to resume it.
General information, not legal advice. This is a plain-language summary for awareness only. Every case turns on its own facts, and this judgment does not decide how a court will rule in your matter. For advice on your own case, speak to an independent advocate — MyCaseFile is not a law firm and does not interpret judgments for anyone's case.