Madras High Court’s Big Statement: Mangalsutra Is Sacred
Madras High Court’s big statement said – removing mangalsutra from the neck is the culmination of mental cruelty from the husband.
If you are a married woman and do not wear mangalsutra, then beware, it is playing with the feelings of the husband.
In one such case, the Madras High Court, terming it as mental cruelty, allowed divorce to the aggrieved husband.
The court said that removing the mangalsutra (plate) from the neck is the culmination of mental cruelty from the husband. This hurts the husband.
The mangalsutra is a sacred thing around the woman’s neck and it symbolizes the continuation of married life. It is lowered only after the death of the husband.
A division bench of Madras High Court Justice VM Velumani and Justice S Saunthar, while hearing a petition filed by Professor C Shivakumar at a medical college in Erode, granted divorce to him.
Madras High Court’s big statement: This information has been given by the news agency.
The petitioner had sought quashing of the local family court’s order dated June 15, 2016, refusing to grant them talaq.
The woman admitted in the court that she had removed the chain (the sacred chain worn by the wife as a sign of marriage) from her mangalsutra at the time of separation.
However, he argued that he had only removed the chain and kept the mangalsutra with him.
His lawyer cited section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act to say that wearing a mangalsutra is not necessary.
Suppose the wife has removed the mangalsutra, even then removing it does not affect the married life.
To this, the court said that it is a matter of common knowledge that the wearing of mangalsutra is a necessary ritual for the wife in marriage ceremonies in this part of the world.
Here the woman taking off the mangalsutra proves that she did it intentionally with the intention of hurting her husband. This is the height of cruelty.
The Court observed that the appellant and his wife have been living separately since 2011. It is clear that the wife has not made any effort to reunite during this period.
The wife has committed mental cruelty to the husband by his act. With this, the bench set aside the order of the lower court and granted divorce to the petitioner.
The wife had made false allegations of a relationship with female colleagues.
The bench said that the woman had made allegations of extramarital affairs with her female colleagues against the man in the presence of college staff, students, and even before the police.
The bench said that it has no hesitation to hold that the wife has committed mental cruelty by doubting the character of the husband and making false allegations of an extramarital affair in his presence.
