CMA/2887/2021 of J. RAJKUMAR Vs R. MAHALAKSHMI on 13 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order and decree dated 16.02.2021 passed by the Family Court, Tiruvannamalai in

H.M.O.P.No.6 of 2020, whereby the petition filed by the appellant seeking divorce by dissolution of marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent, came to be dismissed by the court below.

2. The marriage between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnised on 06.03.2011 at Meenakshi Mahal, Sathuvachari, Vellore as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of the said wedlock, a male child named Jashith was born to them. During the course of their matrimonial life, differences arose between the parties. The Respondent/Wife expressed a total lack of interest in Hindu temples and refused to accompany the Appellant to places of worship. After the marriage, the appellant and the respondent were residing in Arcot and subsequently, shifted their matrimonial home to Bangalore. Due to escalating matrimonial disputes, the appellant and the respondent separated and have been living apart continuously. Aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent, the appellant filed a petition seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and conversion to another religion u/s 13 (1) (i-a) (1) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in H.M.O.P.No.89 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thiruvannamalai. Subsequently, it was transferred to the file of the Family Court, Tiruvannamalai and renumbered as H.M.O.P.No.6 of 2020

and the same was dismissed, vide order, dated 16.02.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent did not follow Hinduism and never visited Hindu temples as she followed Christianity under the influence of her relatives. This caused the appellant severe mental agony and torture. He further submitted that the family court erroneously concluded that the respondent had never compelled the appellant to set up a separate independent matrimonial home away from his mother and relatives. A perusal of Ex.R.4 clearly elucidates the fact that the respondent has lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station in C.S.R.No.87 of 2012, wherein she explicitly requested a separate residence. The act of the respondent in lodging a police complaint against the appellant and his family members clearly amounts to cruelty, subjecting the appellant to severe mental agony. Furthermore, he submitted that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent in M.C.No.3809 of 2013 on the file of the IV Additional Principal Judge, Bangalore was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.08.2017. The family court held that if the respondent has intention to restore the marital relationship, she could have filed a counter claim in the

H.M.O.P. instead of filing a separate petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this appeal.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there is no oral or documentary evidence on record to substantiate the grounds raised by the appellant for grant of divorce. He further submitted that the appellant had demanded money from the respondent, which she was prepared to pay, given that both the parties are employed as software professionals in Bangalore. Unexpectedly, the appellant left for Chennai without informing the respondent. Consequently, the respondent had lodged a complaint before the law enforcing agency, which subsequently conducted mediation between the parties, during which the appellant agreed to reunite with the respondent. However, shortly thereafter, he filed a divorce petition, which is not sustainable. Accordingly, the family court has rightly dismissed the divorce petition, which does not require any interference. He therefore prays for the dismissal of the appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

6. There is no dispute regarding the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. Admittedly, due to matrimonial disputes, the appellant and the respondent are living separately. It is the contention of the appellant that the respondent did not follow Hinduism and never visited Hindu temples as she followed Christianity under the influence of her relatives, which allegedly caused the appellant severe mental agony and torture. However, in order to prove the same, there must be definitive proof of a formal change of faith. The appellant has failed to produce any documentary evidence establishing that the respondent underwent a religious conversion. Merely having Christian relatives or showing a lack of interest in temple visits does not cross the threshold of statutory conversion. Therefore, the family court rightly declined to consider the said ground for the grant of divorce. Furthermore, the appellant contends that the respondent’s demand for a separate matrimonial home and the lodging of a police complaint constitute cruelty. In a modern social context, where both spouses are independent working professionals, a request by the wife to establish a nuclear matrimonial home to escape domestic friction cannot be construed as mental cruelty. A perusal of Ex.R.4 shows that the respondent approached the All Women Police Station seeking mediation and a peaceful domestic environment to preserve the marriage, rather than targeting the appellant maliciously. Recourse to lawful authorities for matrimonial resolution does not automatically constitute cruelty unless it is proved to be maliciously false and vexatious, which the appellant has failed to establish. Therefore, upon a comprehensive evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court arrived at a just conclusion that the appellant failed to prove the grounds of cruelty and conversion to another religion. Accordingly, dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant, which is per se sustainable. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sp To The Family Court, Tiruvannamalai.

M.DHANDAPANI, J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J. sp C.M.A.No.2887 of 2021 13-10-2026