CMA/3368/2026 of Divya Saravana Prabhu Vs M.G.Saravana Prabhu on 1 October 2026

Common Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The wife is the appellant before this Court. In C.M.A.No.3368 of 2026, she seeks to challenge the order passed by the III Additional Family Court, Chennai in H.M.O.P.No.5002 of 2022 filed by the husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery. In C.M.A.No.3369 of 2026, she seeks to challenge the dismissal of her petition filed under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a direction to the first respondent herein to return the articles mentioned in IA No. 3 of 20234.

2. A common order has been passed by the learned III Additional Family Judge, Chennai and therefore, this Court is also passing a common order. The facts as contained in HMOP No. 5002 of 22 are briefly set out herein-below.

3. It is the case of the 1s respondent that he had filed HMOP No. 5002 of 2022 seeking to dissolve the marriage between him and the appellant herein which was solemnized on 01-02-2009. Through the said marriage, they have been blessed with two children, namely S.D. Rohan Sai, born on 11.03.2012, and S.D. Avantika, born on 23.12.2015. The first respondent would submit that one of the main conditions for the marriage was that after the marriage, the appellant would continue to live with the first respondent and his mother, as his father had died 22 years earlier. It is only after the appellant had consented to the same, the marriage had been fixed. The first respondent would submit that the appellant was an extrovert and had a huge circle of friends with whom she was constantly in touch. The 1st respondent had advised her to put an end to such activities, as she was a married woman. However, the appellant had refused to desist from contacting her friends, this despite the fact that only after the appellant had consented to restricting her interaction with her large circle of friends that the marriage had been fixed.

4. The first respondent would submit that around the year 2011, the appellant had consumed the sleeping tablets which were kept in his mother’s medicine box. The first respondent had given her saline water so that she could throw up the tablets that she had consumed. Though the marriage was arranged with a specific understanding that the first respondent's mother would live with them, later the appellant started demanding that the first respondent leave his mother and set up a separate residence with her. The first respondent flatly refused the same stating that his mother was old and that he would not be able to leave her to fend for herself.

5. The first respondent would further submit that, when their son was about one and a half years old, the appellant would threaten him not to go near the first respondent’s mother. On one occasion, hearing his child screaming, the first respondent opened the door of the room and found that the appellant had lit a candle and threatened to drop candle wax on his son if he went near the first respondent’s mother. When questioned about this, she rushed to the terrace and jumped onto the neighbouring building, threatening the first respondent with suicide.

6. The first respondent would submit that, in October 2018, he found the appellant engaged in a video call with an unidentified man. When the first respondent had questioned her, she started hitting her head against the wall, saying that she would die and that she would pour acid on her face. Similarly, in August 2019, the appellant had planned to attend a friend’s wedding in another State. When the first respondent had enquired about the details, the appellant gave evasive answers. After the appellant had returned from the wedding, she developed the habit of talking to her friends over the phone till midnight. The first respondent also found videos on her phone showing her in a drunken state, abusing him in foul language and dancing with her friends.

7. The first respondent had admitted his daughter to National Public School. As the school demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards school fees, he had admitted his children to Church Park, as he was unable to afford the high fees. This angered the appellant, and while the husband and wife were arguing, she ran into the bathroom and consumed Harpic. The appellant was rushed to the hospital, where she recovered. The police had investigated the incident and advised her.

8. During the COVID-19 lockdown, the appellant’s phone calls would continue until 2.00 a.m. The language that she used towards the first respondent was abusive. On 11.09.2022, at around 12.30 a.m., while the first respondent was taking care of his mother on the ground floor, he noticed that the lights were on in the first-floor bedroom. When he opened the door, the appellant started shouting at him. Therefore, the first respondent snatched the appellant’s mobile phone and found that she was engaged in an obscene video call with the second respondent. He also came to know that she was having an illicit relationship with the second respondent and had saved the second respondent’s name in her phone as “Sowmiya”.

9. The first respondent would submit that, since May 2022, the appellant had been having an extramarital affair with the second respondent. WhatsApp conversations between the appellant and the second respondent clearly indicated that they had engaged in a physical relationship and had exchanged photographs and videos of an intimate nature. This incident was immediately reported by the first respondent to the appellant’s parents, who were shocked by her behaviour. The first respondent had called the second respondent on 12.09.2022, and the second respondent apologised to the first respondent and said that it was being done only for fantasy. While the elders of both families were discussing the matter, the appellant clearly stated that she was no longer interested in living with the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent had filed the petition seeking divorce.

10. A counter had been filed denying the allegations made in the petition. The appellant would state that there was a 12 year age difference between herself and the 1st respondent and that being a mother of two children aged 11 and 8 at the age of 30 itself was inhuman. She would submit that the 1st respondent was very possessive and suspicious of her relationships with her friends. She was forced to cut off contact with her friends for a period of time. The first respondent had never taken the appellant and her children out for entertainment, as a normal family would, and during their married life, they had gone on holiday only once.

11. The appellant would further state that she and her children were confined within the four walls of the house which caused her irreparable mental stress and harassment to her and prompted her to take extreme steps to commit suicide. She would also make allegations against the 1st respondent’s brother stating that he was a drunkard and was a bad influence on her children as he would show them pornography videos. When she had complained about the same to the 1st respondent, he refused to question his brother. This was also a reason for the misunderstanding between the two.

12. The appellant would submit that her relationship with the second respondent was casual and only for “recreational purposes”, and that no inference of an extramarital relationship could be drawn. She would submit that she had never committed any mistake and that it was only the suspicious attitude of the first respondent that had caused her severe mental stress. She would submit that she was then dependent on her aged parents to support her and her children and that the first respondent had not discharged his duties as a father. She prayed for the dismissal of the H.M.O.P. and for the grant of interim maintenance of Rs.3,00,000/- per month.

13. In I.A.No.3 of 2024, the appellant had stated that the first respondent had deserted her and her children in August 2022 and had refused to pay maintenance or return her personal articles and jewels weighing 70 sovereigns, presented by her parents, as well as the articles belonging to her children. She would submit that the school materials belonging to the children had been returned. The first respondent was in possession of 5 necklaces, 4 chains, 8 bangles, 10 pairs of earrings, 10 sets of rings, 1 haraam, 1 nethichutti, silver vessels weighing a total of 5 kg, apart from household articles.

14. The first respondent had filed a counter in I.A.No.3 of 2024, wherein he had stated that, on 01.10.2022, the appellant had taken her belongings and that, on 30.10.2022, she had taken the remaining articles along with her father. Except for a set of mattresses and her clothes, all the other articles had been taken by her. He would submit that the appellant had worn these jewels at her brother’s engagement on 07.03.2024 and had also pledged them in February 2024 at Bhavsar Maratah Nidhi Limited, Chennai.

15. The first respondent would submit that the appellant was working and receiving a salary from Geoscape (LA Association), which was credited to her State Bank of India account at the Triplicane Branch. These details had been omitted from the statement of assets and liabilities filed by her. The first respondent would further submit that, since 2023, he had been paying monthly maintenance as ordered by the Court and had also paid all the school fees. He would submit that he was ready to take custody of the children.

16. The learned Family Judge, had framed the following points for consideration in H.M.O.P.No.5002 of 2022 and I.A.No.3 of 2024. “Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce on the ground of Adultery and cruelty? Whether the petitioner/wife is entitled to receive the articles, as prayed for?”

17. The 1st respondent had examined himself as P.W1 and marked Ex.P1 to P21. The appellant had examined herself as R.W1 and marked Ex.R1. The notice sent to the 2nd respondent has been returned with an endorsement “unclaimed” and he was set ex-parte before the lower court. The learned Judge, on a detailed examination of evidence of both oral and documentary evidence, had come to the conclusion that the 1st respondent had proved the allegation of adultery against the appellant based on her conduct. The learned Judge had also observed that the application for return of the jewellery and household articles was not bonafie and was not supported by reliable and convincing evidence. Consequently, a decree for divorce was granted and the application for return of the jewellery and articles was dismissed. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court.

10. The points which require for consideration are:

a) Whether the allegation of adultery and cruelty have been proved by the 1st respondent?

b) Whether the finding of the learned Family Judge regarding the return of the jewels and articles is correct.?

18. The 1st respondent-husband has knocked on the doors of this Court seeking divorce on the grounds of

a) Cruelty and

b) Adultery.

19. The first respondent had stated that the appellant was in the habit of threatening to commit suicide if she was questioned about her indiscreet acts. On one occasion, the appellant had consumed Harpic and had to be rushed to the hospital for treatment. The police had investigated the incident. The appellant had consumed Harpic following a quarrel between herself and the first respondent regarding the admission of the children to Church Park instead of National Public School, owing to the first respondent’s inability to pay the high fees. The relevant portion of the cross-examination which is extracted herein below would confirm the same:

nfhtpl; fhyj;jpy; kDjhuUf;F tUkhdk; ,y;yhjjhy; “

me;jg; gs;spapy; ,Ue;J ntW gs;spahd rh;r; ghh;f; gs;spf;F nrh;f;f Kaw;rp bra;j nghJ vdf;F tpUg;gk; ,y;yhjjhy; ehd; Foj;njd ; vd;Wk;. VdJ fzth ; jhd ; vd;id kUj;Jtkidf;F miHj;Jr ; brd;whh ; vd;why ; For;rJ cz;ikjhd;/ mth ; vdf;F bfhLj;j kd cisr;ry; fhuzkhf Foj;njd;/ vjph; ciu rhl;rpf;F fhz;gpf;fg;gl;lJ/ mt;thW Harpic Foj;jjw;fhf fhuzk; vdJ vjph; ciuapy; bjhptpj;Js;nsdh vd;why; brhy;yp cs;nsd;/ kdcisr;ry; fhuzj;jhy ; jw;bfhiy Kaw;rp bra;njd ; vd;W brhy;yp cs;nsd;/” This would clearly show that the appellant had attempted to commit suicide and was in the habit of threatening the first respondent with suicide to achieve her ends. This had caused considerable mental distress to the first respondent. This is clearly an act of cruelty the first respondent had marked the WhatsApp messages between the appellant and the second respondent, along with a C.D., as Ex.P5, and the WhatsApp messages of the first respondent with an unknown person as Ex.P6. The WhatsApp conversations clearly indicated that the appellant and the second respondent had been physically intimate and had shared pictures of themselves while taking bath. The appellant had not cross-examined the first respondent with regard to the allegations of adultery made by him in his petition as also his oral evidence.

20. Since the appellant in the counter affidavit had at para11 stated that her relationship with the 2nd respondent was purely casual and for recreational purpose a question was put to her as to what she meant by recreational purposes.The appellant, as R.W1, has replied as follows:. “Recreation purpose vd;gjd; mh;j;jk; vd;d vd;why; mjd; mh;j;jk; vd;d vd;W vdf;F bjhpatpy;iy/ mtUld; casualMf jhd ; ngrpndd;/ ehd ; ,ilf;fhy kDtpy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s gpukhz thf;FK:yk; kw;Wk; gjpy; kD Mfpatw;wpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s casual kw;Wk; Recreation purpose vd;w tifapy; ehd; ,uz;lhk; vjph;kDjhuiu jtpu ntW

Mz;fSld ; ngrp cs;nsdh vd;why;friendscld; ngrpa[s;nsd;/” This admission clearly shows that the appellant was in the habit of exchanging intimate messages not only with the second respondent but also with others, which would support the statement made by the first respondent. The appellant has admitted that the second respondent had tendered an apology to the first respondent. According to the appellant, this amounted to a crime.

21. The appellant has also stated as follows in paragraph No.13 of her counter. “13) The 1st Respondent admits a part of Paragraph of 14 of the petition and denies the remaining since it contains both the opinion of the petitioner and the facts of the case. The 1st Re- spondent could not believe that the Petitioner would stoop down to such a low level of asking the 2nd Respondent to come for an enquiry before a counsellor and by compelling him to admit his alleged activities and to render apologies for his

Telephonic conversation with the 1st Respondent as though it was some crime, and hence such a humiliating exercise was the final stage of misunderstanding between the parties culminat- ing in this petition. Having been forced to face such a humiliat- ing experience in public, the 1st Respondent was forced to leave her marital home and since then she has been staying with her parents since the mutual trust between the parties has been completely shattered and the present atmosphere in the marital home is not proper for leading a normal marital life.” This statement clearly shows that the appellant is not repentant about her indiscreet acts involving extramarital relationships with other men on the contrary she found asking them to apologise was a “crime”

22. The Court below had observed as follows in paragraph No.24 of the judgment with reference to the WhatsApp messages and video calls:

“24. This court has perused the Ex. P5 Whatsapp messages and Ex.P.7 Video Calls Screen shots produced by the peti- tioner and found that on number of occasions, the respon- dents 1 and 2 have exchanged whatsapp messages. Upon reading the WhatsApp conversation between the 1st and 2nd respondent would reveals that it is not a friendly conversation and it appears to be a personal conversation. Further seeing the entire Whatsapp chat it also reveals that earlier the re- spondents 1 and 2 voluntarily had sexual intercourse and they have discussing about the same in the said WhatsApp chats. Further the images of the respondents 1 and 2 are clearly ap- pears in the Ex.P.7 Video Call Screen shot. The respondent in her counter as well as evidence she has not denied the said Whatsapp chats and her photograph shown in the Ex.P.7. Whereas the 1st respondent in her evidence she deposed that “kDtpy; 2tJ vjph;kDjhuhpd; bgaiu brskpah vd;W ehd; bra;J bfhz;L mjpy ; me;ju';fkhd tpcoa';fis ngrpf;bfhz;oUe;jjhf brhy;ypa[s;ns;d vd;Wk;. me;j tptuj;ij vdJ vjph; ciuapy; kWj;Js;nsdh vd;why;. me;j khjphp xU fhz;lhf;l; ,y;yhjnghJ mij ehd; vjph;ciuapy; brhy;yntz;oa mtrpakpy;iy/” Further, she deposed that “vjph; ciuapy; gj;jp 11y; vdJ gh;rdy; bknr$!; jhf;fy; bra;J kDjhuh; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; bfhLf;fpwhh; vd;W brhy;ypa[s;nsd;/ ”. From the above evidence of the 1" re- spondent it is clear that the whatsapp chats between the 1st and 2nd respondent is personal conversation and she is also aware of the contents of Ex.P.5 and Ex.P7, Video Call Screen shot which are filed by the petitioner before this court. Inspite of knowing the above facts, the 1st respondent nowhere de- nied about her whatsapp conversation with the 2nd respon- dent. This court already held that the whatsapp chats dis- closed the extramarital relationship between the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that the allegation of adultery is proved by the petitioner.”

23. In the light of the above, it is clear that the first respondent has proved his allegation of adultery. Therefore, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the first respondent.

24. In her affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.3 of 2024,the appellant in paragraph has stated as follows: “5. I submit that the respondent has the custody of my jew- els, silverware, costly dresses and furniture articles viz; Necklace-5, Chain- 4,Bangle-8, Earings-10, Rings-10 sets,

Aaram-1, NethiChutti-1, silver vessels (plates, Pooja items (Total 4kgs), 1-cot and mattress, Ac, TV, washing ma- chine; fridge, Godrej Bureau, Kid's jewellery (Diamond rings)Silk sarees- 40 and Hand bags-20 etc. I further sub- mit in addition to the above articles, my parents have gifted many valuable jewels for my two chil- dren at the time of their birth”

25. The Court below, based on the oral and documentary evidence, had held that the first respondent had returned 50 sovereigns of jewels to the appellant and that she had also pledged some of them. Though she had claimed that her jewellery weighed about 70 sovereigns in total, in her evidence, she had stated that only 58 ½ sovereigns had been given by the parents of the appellant. Her evidence in this regard is as follows: ehd; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s eiffis jpUg;gpf; bfhLf;f “

ntz;Lk ; vd;w kDtpy ; vj;jid rtud ; eiffs ; kDjhuh; tPl;lhh; vdf;F nghl;lit vd;W Fwpf;gpl;Ls;nsd; vd;why;. 58 ½ sovereigns vd;W Fwpg;gpl;Ls;nsd;/ ,e;j tHf;F

epYitapy ; cs;s rkaj;jpy ; kDjhuh ; vdf;F Ik;gJ rtud; eiffis jpUg;gpf; bfhLj;Jtpl;lhh; vd;W ehd; xU nknkhtpy; jhf;fy ; bra;njd ; vd;why ; rhpjhd ; m;ej bknkhtpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s eiffs;. ehd ; jhf;fy ; bra;Js;s eiffis jpUg;gpf; bfhLf;f ntz;Lk; vd;w kDtpy; Fwpg;gpl;l eiffSk; ml';fpa[s;sjh vd;why; xU rpy eiffs; bfhLj;Jtpl;lhh;/”

26. In view of the above, there is no evidence to show that the appellant had brought 70 sovereigns of jewellery to the matrimonial home. Issue No.2 is also answered in favour of the first respondent. Therefore, the finding of the learned III Additional Family Judge, Chennai is confirmed. Accordingly, these civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the 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

SRN To III Additional Family Court, Chennai

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. SRN CMA No. 3368 of 2026 AND CMA NO. 3369 OF 2026, CMP NO. 26944 OF 2026 01-10-2026