Childlessness cannot by itself amount to cruelty and a wife cannot be blamed merely because a married couple is unable to conceive, the Madras High Court recently observed.

A Division Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi said that the inability of spouse to have a child cannot be converted into a matrimonial fault of the wife.

“Marriage cannot be reduced to the sole object of procreation. A spouse cannot be treated as having failed in the matrimonial relationship merely because the parties did not have a child,” the Court said.

The Court made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by a husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

A family court had earlier dismissed the plea, prompting him to approach the High Court.

The couple married in June 2007. The husband alleged that after an initially peaceful marriage, his wife began humiliating him, suspected him whenever he returned late from work, frequently left the matrimonial home and refused matrimonial companionship.

He also alleged that in June 2016, she publicly called him impotent, assaulted him with footwear and later with a broom, removed her thali, tore their photographs and left the matrimonial home.

The wife denied the allegations. She said she had undergone surgery for a uterine fibroid and treatment in the hope of conceiving and continuing her matrimonial life.

The High Court upheld the family court’s finding that the allegations of assault, humiliation and abandonment had not been satisfactorily proved.

While cruelty must be examined by considering the matrimonial relationship as a whole, the Court said that “unproved allegations, when accumulated”, cannot automatically become proved cruelty.

The Bench particularly highlighted the physical and emotional burden involved in fertility treatment. Such treatment, it noted, may involve hormonal injections, repeated scans and blood tests, invasive procedures, bodily discomfort, anxiety and repeated cycles of hope and disappointment.

The Court said the wife’s willingness to undergo such treatment was inconsistent with the allegation that she had abandoned the marriage or deliberately avoided matrimonial life.

“When a wife, despite knowing the physical and emotional hardship involved, willingly undergoes such treatment in the hope of bearing a child and preserving the matrimonial relationship, that conduct cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as a rejection of the marriage or as cruelty towards her husband,” the Court said.

The Bench added that the wife’s conduct in repeatedly undergoing treatment also showed that she had not given up on the marriage.

“A woman who repeatedly subjects herself to painful treatment in the hope of building a family with her husband cannot simultaneously be portrayed as a person who has abandoned the matrimonial bond.”

The Court further observed that while both spouses may share the emotional anguish of remaining childless, the physical consequences of fertility treatment are borne by the woman herself.

It said the “tears shed in a hospital corridor”, the anxiety before a medical report, the pain endured during treatment and the hope carried from one attempt to another could not simply be reduced to allegations in matrimonial proceedings.

The Court also rejected the argument that the couple’s prolonged separation was by itself sufficient to establish cruelty or irretrievable breakdown of marriage. It noted that the wife continued to express her willingness to resume matrimonial life.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the family court’s refusal to dissolve the marriage.

Advocate R Murali appeared for the husband.

Advocate S Vaidurya represented the wife.