Both spouses were cruel. The High Court still granted divorce.

Two emails, one broken marriage, and a High Court that refused to pick sides

When S. Kumarappan married Jeyapriva on 3 November 2017 at a temple in Rajapalayam, both were educated professionals with independent careers. He worked on ships out of Chennai. She ran her own business. Within two years, the marriage collapsed into a war of emails, police complaints, and competing allegations of cruelty. The Family Court at Srivilliputhur sided with the wife, dismissing the husband's divorce petition. The husband appealed. And on 23 February 2024, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench — Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice C. Kumarappan — did something unusual: it dissolved the marriage without declaring either spouse the sole wrongdoer.

The stakes were not just about one couple. The case raised a question that haunts every contested divorce in India: what happens when both parties have been cruel to each other? Can a court grant divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when cruelty runs both ways?

The marriage that soured in two years

The couple lived in Chennai after their wedding. The husband's job on ships meant long periods away. The wife ran her own business. Disputes began early. The wife alleged that the husband's mother and sister pushed her down the steps of the matrimonial home, causing a miscarriage. She also claimed the husband had a poor sperm count. The husband, in turn, alleged that the wife refused physical intimacy and took back her jewels. By December 2019, the couple had separated. They never lived together again.

In 2020, the wife filed a criminal complaint — Crime No.16 of 2020 — against the husband and his family, alleging dowry harassment and cruelty. The husband responded by filing a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Srivilliputhur, registered as H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2022.

What the Family Court decided

The Family Court dismissed the husband's petition on 19 October 2022. Its reasoning was straightforward: the wife was the victim of cruelty, not the perpetrator. The court found that the husband's allegations of cruelty by the wife were not made out. It refused to grant divorce.

The husband appealed to the Madras High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, in C.M.A.(MD)No.44 of 2024.

The emails that told the real story

Before the High Court, both parties relied heavily on email exchanges between them. The husband marked emails as Exhibits B1, B2, B6, and B7. The wife did not dispute their authenticity. The Bench read them carefully. What they found was not a one-sided attack but a mutual exchange of abuse.

"The email communications between the parties reveal that both the appellant and the respondent have used abusive language against each other," the Bench observed. "Both have caused mental cruelty to each other."

The husband's counsel argued that the wife's criminal complaint was false and, under Supreme Court precedent, filing a false criminal complaint against a husband and his family constitutes cruelty. The Bench noted this argument but did not base its decision solely on it. Instead, it looked at the totality of conduct.

Why the High Court reversed

The Bench identified two critical facts. First, the parties had been separated since December 2019 — over five years by the date of judgment. Second, the email exchanges showed both parties were equally responsible for the breakdown. The marriage had become "worthless and deadwood," the Court said.

The ratio decidendi was clear: when both spouses are equally responsible for causing mental cruelty to each other through abusive conduct, and the marriage has irretrievably broken down with prolonged separation and no prospect of reunion, the marital tie which has become worthless and deadwood is bound to be dissolved, without requiring attribution of cruelty to one party alone.

The Court set aside the Family Court's order and granted a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage dated 3 November 2017.

THE PLAY: When both parties have exchanged abusive emails and lived separately for over five years, a court can grant divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) without declaring either spouse the sole perpetrator of cruelty — mutual cruelty is a valid ground.

What the divorce decree does not affect

The Bench was careful to add a crucial clarification. The divorce decree, it said, "shall not stand in the way of the respondent pursuing her criminal complaint." The criminal proceedings in Crime No.16/2020 — alleging cruelty and dowry harassment — are distinct offences to be tried independently. A civil decree of divorce does not prejudice a criminal prosecution.

This is a critical safeguard. It means a spouse who has filed a criminal complaint does not lose the right to pursue it merely because the marriage is dissolved. The two proceedings operate on different standards of proof and serve different purposes.

The obiter that matters for practitioners

The Bench also made an observation that litigators will find useful. It noted that both parties were well educated and could have saved the matrimonial relationship if they had the intention to do so. It added that any delay in deciding marital status may cause further escalation of discord and acrimony for parties who have crossed 35 years of age.

This obiter may be cited to support time-sensitive disposal of matrimonial disputes. It suggests that courts should not let matrimonial cases languish, especially when the parties are young enough to rebuild their lives. The longer the litigation, the more entrenched the hostility.

Why this judgment matters for advocates, CFOs, and founders

For advocates, the case provides a template for arguing mutual cruelty. The traditional approach in divorce litigation is to paint the other spouse as the sole villain. This judgment shows that a court can grant divorce even when both parties have been cruel — provided the cruelty is established through documentary evidence like emails, and the separation is prolonged.

For CFOs and founders, the lesson is about risk management in personal life. A contested divorce can drag on for years, consuming time, energy, and money. The judgment underscores that courts are willing to cut through the blame game when the marriage is clearly dead. If you are in a similar situation, the key is to preserve documentary evidence — emails, messages, call logs — that show the conduct of both parties.

The case also highlights the importance of forum choice. The husband filed his divorce petition at Srivilliputhur, not Chennai where the couple lived. The Family Court there dismissed it. The High Court reversed. Forum shopping can backfire if the trial court takes a different view of the facts.

The bottom line

If you are in a marriage where both sides have exchanged abuse and lived apart for years, do not assume divorce is impossible just because you are not the only victim. The Madras High Court has now held that mutual cruelty — proven through emails and prolonged separation — is enough to dissolve a dead marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, without requiring one party to be the sole wrongdoer.