The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently held that removal of thali (mangalsutra) by a Hindu wife would reflect mental cruelty to the husband.

Justice P Vadamalai upheld a decree of divorce granted to a man after over three decades of separation from his wife. The Court dismissed an appeal filed by the wife challenging the divorce granted by a trial court in 2017. The decree had been confirmed in 2019.

"This Court holds that the removal of Thali would reflect mental cruelty," the High Court's order read.

The couple had married on August 30, 1977 as per Hindu rites and customs. The husband had filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty, desertion and long separation. He alleged that the wife had repeatedly accused him of having relationships with several women and had written complaints to his superiors in the Army, where he had been serving. He also alleged that the wife had removed her thali, stopped wearing jewellery and converted to Christianity.

The wife denied the allegations. She claimed that it was the husband who had relationships with other women. She also alleged that he had once confined her and their children inside a house and set it on fire. She further claimed that he had cut her right thumb, leading to a criminal case in which he was convicted.

On the issue of thali, the Court noted that the wife had admitted in evidence that she had removed it and did not wear gold ornaments. Referring to earlier decisions of the Madras High Court, the Court said that removal of thali has significance in Hindu marital life. It quoted an earlier ruling which held that thali is a sacred symbol of the continuance of married life and is ordinarily removed only after the death of the husband.

The High Court noted that the wife had admitted during evidence that she had sent complaints to the husband’s superiors in the Army alleging that he had illicit relationships with women.

The Court also found that the wife had admitted in evidence that she had sent complaints to the husband’s superiors in the Army alleging that he had illegal relationships with women.

“It is very clear that the respondent/wife admitted that she made a complaint to the Army's Higher officials regarding the petitioner/husband’s alleged illegal contacts with a woman,” the Court noted.

The wife was represented by Advocates S Ramesh.

The husband was represented by Advocates M P Senthil and A Mohamed Haneef.