CMA/1734/2023 of D. THANIGESH Vs REKHA.K on 1 October 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) Challenging both the dismissal of his application seeking dissolution of marriage in HMOP.No.1555 of 2014 and allowing the application in HMOP.No.2300 of 2021 filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights, the husband is before this Court vide the above civil miscellaneous appeals.

2. The short facts necessary to dispose the above civil miscellaneous appeals are herein below set out : CMA.No.1734 of 2023 (as against the order in HMOP.No.1555 of 2014) A. Appellant's case :

(a) It is the case of the appellant that he married the respondent on 16.11.2007 and their marriage was a love marriage. They both were employed in HCL BPO Limited, Chennai and during their employment they fell in love with each other and got married. They both belonged to different castes and their marriage was an intercaste marriage.

(b) After the marriage, the appellant and the respondent set up their matrimonial home separately and was blessed with a daughter Krishna.

(c) The appellant would allege that the respondent was highly suspicious and used to abuse him in a filthy language. She abused the appellant of having relationship with a number of girl friends. As days passed, on, her suspicious behaviour had increased and reached its peak in July 2013. This had caused acute mental harassment to the appellant. The appellant would submit that his job is of such a nature that he had to interact with women staff working in the office and the respondent's behaviour was very toxic.

(d) The appellant would also accuse the respondent for her quarrelsome, peculiar and non co-operative behaviour.

(e) On 04.04.2014, there arose a wordy quarrel between the appellant and the respondent, and the respondent without intimating the appellant, had walked out of the matrimonial home and returned to her parental home. Despite his continuous request to return to the matrimonial home, the respondent never returned and deserted the appellant. Therefore, the appellant had filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

B. Respondent's case :

(a) The respondent has filed a counter denying the allegations that she was quarrelsome, peculiar and non co-operative and suspicious in nature. She also denied that she used abusive words and filthy language to the appellant. She would also submit that all the allegations levelled against her by the appellant are contrary and false.

(b) The respondent would go to state that the appellant was having illicit affair with one Mahalakshmi who was already married and having a five year old child. This was brought to her knowledge through one Vinoth over phone,

(c) On 14.04.2014, when the respondent had gone to her parent's home, the appellant had created a scene. He behaved wildly and ill-treated her.

(d) It is her contention that the doors to her house contains 2 keys, one was retained by the appellant and the other with the respondent. On 05.04.2014, the appellant had suddenly changed the lock of his house and neither provided the spare key to the respondent nor was this informed to her. Therefore, the respondent was unable to enter the house and was made to wait for a long time.

(e) The respondent would allege that she was forcibly prevented by the appellant and that it is the appellant who had driven her out of the matrimonial house. However, considering the welfare of her daughter, the respondent wanted to live with the appellant and hence, sought for the dismissal of the divorce petition.

3. The learned Family Court Judge had framed the following points for consideration in the petition filed by the appellant/petitioner seeking divorce:

1. Whether respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty as prayed for?

4. The learned Judge had perused the evidence on record and had taken into consideration the arguments. The learned Judge upon considering that the respondent in her counter has alleged that the appellant had illicit relationship with one Mahalakshmi, which fact she came to know through one Vinoth, who is none other than the husband of the said Mahalakshmi, had held that such suspicion and doubts are common in a family life and it is for the appellant to clear the doubts. The learned Judge had also held that the appellant had not stated that he had cleared the doubts of the respondent, rather, despite her suspicious behavior, he continued to live with the respondent only by considering the welfare of the child. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant had condoned the act of the respondent. The learned Judge had also observed that the respondent had not deserted the appellant but it is the appellant who had changed the key to the doors without intimating the same to the respondent, thereby making it impossible for her to enter the matrimonial home and further the appellant had not proved the case of mental cruelty. Therefore, the learned Family Court Judge went on to hold that the appellant had miserably failed to prove that he was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the respondent, and ultimately dismissed the petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Family Judge in HMOP.No.1555 of 2014, the petitioner is before this Court in CMA.No.1734 of 2023.

6. CMA.No.1737 of 2023 (

as against the order in HMOP.No.2300 of 2021)

On the contrary, the respondent-wife has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the IV Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai in HMOP.No.2300 of 2021 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent- wife would allege that she acted as a dutiful wife and never insulted the appellant-husband. It is only the appellant who had started drifting away from the petitioner and her daughter, and avoided his duties as a husband and as a father of the daughter. However, the respondent-wife is ready to forgive the respondent's illicit affair and is willing to resume her matrimonial life with the appellant. Therefore, she has filed the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

7. The appellant/husband also filed a counter to the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent/wife. His counter contains more or less the similar allegations alleged by him in his petition for divorce. He would contend that the respondent has failed to prove the allegation against him that he had illicit affair with one married woman even after 7 years. Hence, he seeks for the dismissal of HMOP.No.2300 of 2021.

8. The learned Family Court Judge on perusing the evidence before him in HMOP.No.2300 of 2021, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not left the matrimonial house on her volition and it is the husband who had driven her out of the matrimonial house and therefore, the wife had started living separately from 04.04.2014. The learned Judge also held that the Court cannot accept the statement of the husband that the wife had damaged the name of the respondent solely relying upon his statement in the counter when no concrete evidence or substantial material was produced before the Court. Accordingly the learned Judge had allowed the petition in HMOP.No.2300 of 2021 by order dated 24.4.2023 and granted the relief of restitution of conjugal rights to the wife.

9. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Family Judge dated 24.04.2023 in HMOP.No.2300 of 2021, granting restitution of conjugal rights to the wife, the appellant/husband is before this Court in CMA.No.1737 of 2023.

10. Ms.Sudharshana Sunder, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the respondent has been making bald allegations against the appellant that he was having illicit relationship with other married women. None of these statements have been proved. Not only had the respondent made a statement in the counter to the petition for divorce but also reiterated it in her petition for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP.No.2300 of 2021. She would submit that the appellant and his wife are both working in

the same office where there are employees of both gender and that they have to interact with each other on account of his official work. However, the suspicious nature of the respondent had made it very difficult for the appellant to carry on his work at office as well as to continue the matrimonial life with her at home.

11. Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife would submit that the respondent is ready to condone the acts of the appellant and now the said Mahalakshmi had also left the appellant and the appellant is alone. Therefore, the respondent-wife is willing to resume her matrimonial life with the appellant.

12. Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record.

13. The allegation of cruelty made by the appellant is that the respondent suffers from a suspicious character and initially, she was in the habit of linking the appellant with other women and thereafter she had insisted that he was having an affair with one Mahalakshmi, who was already married and having a 5 years old child. Though the respondent had contended that she had come to know about the affair of the appellant with Mahalakshmi through one Vinoth, however, she has not examined the said Vinoth nor has she examined any other persons to substantiate the contention that her husband, the appellant herein was having illicit relationship with other women. Despite the appellant's denial, the respondent had eloquently stated about the illicit relationship not once but twice in her counter to HMOP.No.1555 of 2014, as also in her petition for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP.No.2300 of 2021, and such an unsubstantiated allegations made repeatedly will definitely cause a great stress and mental agony to the husband. It is clear that despite his denial, the respondent persists in perceiving the appellant is indulging in illicit relationship with other woman. This is nothing but an act of mental cruelty, particularly when the same remains unsubstantiated.

14. We are at a loss to understand as to how the Court below in HMOP.No.1555 of 2014, has observed that the appellant has condoned this act of cruelty. The appellant had only put up with the same and when the allegation became repetitive, he had proceeded to file a petition for divorce.

15. The respondent who had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP.No.2300 of 2021, after 7 years of separation, clearly shows that the petition is a lip service and an attempt to defeat the appellant's petition for divorce. The averments in the restitution petition clearly shows that although the respondent herein believes that her husband, the appellant herein, is having an affair with other women, she is ready to accept and willing to resume her matrimonial life is for the sake of her daughter. Therefore, there is every chance of the respondent once again indulging in a similar arguments with the appellant, if in case they rejoin.

16. In the light of the fact that since the appellant has proved that the respondent was making wild and unsubstantiated allegations against him alleging adultery, the appellant is entitled to a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, CMA.No.1734 of 2023 is allowed and the order in HMOP.No.1555 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, dated 24.04.2023 is set aside, and the appellant is granted a decree for dissolution of marriage which was held on 16.11.2007. Consequently, the CMA.No.1737 of 2023 stands allowed and the order of the learned Judge dated 24.04.2023 in HMOP.No.2330 of 2021, granting restitution of conjugal right is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DS To:

1. The IV Additional Principal Family Court Chennai.

2. The Section Officer VR Section High Court, Madras.

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. DS CMA No. 1734 & 1737 of 2023 and CMP No.17069 of 2023 01-10-2026