The Madras High Court, in its decision to reject a husband's plea for divorce based on cruelty, emphasized that the mere act of a wife filing a complaint at a police station does not constitute cruelty. The court stressed that unless the husband can substantiate that the complaint was falsely related to dowry demands, it cannot be considered as grounds for cruelty.

The divsion bench of Justices R Subramanian and R Sakthivel noted that they did not find any wrongdoing in the wife's behavior when she filed a police complaint with the intention of reconciling and living together with her husband.

The husband appealed against the decision of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, who had denied him a divorce. His argument centered on the claim that he was coerced into converting to Christianity by his wife's family. Furthermore, he alleged that his wife neglected to inform him about the birth of their child and subsequently refused to continue living with him.

Furthermore, the husband contended that his wife had filed a police complaint against him. He emphasized that their marriage had irretrievably broken down and that the situation was more severe than the usual challenges of married life. He argued that the trial court had failed to properly evaluate the evidence and had incorrectly concluded that his case was not substantiated.

In contrast, the wife countered the husband's claims by asserting that she had not coerced him into converting to Christianity. She refuted the accusations of desertion, stating that she had consistently attempted to maintain a relationship with her husband, but it was he who chose not to reside with her. She further stated that she was prepared and eager to reconcile with her husband, but he had deserted her for nearly 20 years without justification. Consequently, she argued that the trial court's decision did not merit any intervention.

The court observed that the wife's filing of the police complaint was an endeavor to reconcile with her husband. Despite the husband's assurance to the police that he would bring his wife and child back home, he failed to fulfill his promise.

The court also emphasized that there was a lack of evidence on record to substantiate the husband's claims of cruelty against his wife. It ruled that the husband had not proven any intention on the wife's part to desert him, known legally as "animus deserendi." Therefore, finding no grounds to overturn the trial court's decision, the appeal was dismissed.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.S.Shanmuganandam

Counsel for the respondent: Ms.N.Subha