The Madras High Court made a recent observation stating that the surgical removal of a wife's uterus due to ovarian cancer during marriage, leading to the inability to have children, does not constitute mental cruelty to the husband and thus does not justify the dissolution of the marriage.

The bench, comprising Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji, upheld a Family Court's decision that dismissed the husband's petition seeking a divorce based on allegations of mental cruelty, desertion, and withholding crucial information.

The husband claimed that his wife had concealed her pre-existing cancer condition before marriage and hadn't disclosed her ability to conceive. He also asserted instances of cruelty and abandonment by his wife. However, the Family Court ruled against the divorce petition, stating that the alleged cruelty and desertion were not substantiated according to legal standards.

Upon reviewing the cross-examination statements of both parties during the appeal, the court observed that the couple had encountered three pregnancies that ended in abortions. It wasn't until the fourth pregnancy that medical professionals discovered malignancy in the wife's uterus. Subsequently, she was referred to the Cancer Institute at Adyar and diagnosed with third-grade ovarian cancer.

Therefore, the court supported the Family Court's decision to dismiss the husband's claim that the cancer was a pre-existing condition before marriage. The court reasoned that the removal of the uterus due to an urgent and life-threatening situation couldn't be considered a basis for mental cruelty justifying divorce. Additionally, the court highlighted that the wife's period of undergoing treatment at her parental home couldn't be categorized as desertion.

In the course of cross-examination, the court highlighted the husband's acknowledgment that the option of having children through surrogacy or adoption existed.

Therefore, the court, recognizing the preservation of a marital bond amid an unforeseen circumstance, rejected the husband's appeal and upheld the Family Court's ruling. Given the unique circumstances, the court suggested referring the case to the Managing Director of Sakthi Charitable Trust to offer financial assistance to the couple for their pursuit of surrogacy or adoption.

The legal representation for the Appellant was provided by Mr. M.P. Senthil, while Mr. Aayiram K. Selvakumar served as the counsel for the Respondent.