CMA/3586/2021 of D.VELAYUDHAM Vs KALAIYARASI on 29 September 2026

JUDGEMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.)

The husband, challenging the order of the III Additional Family Judge, Chennai, dismissing his petition in HMOP.No.1397 of 2014, filed seeking dissolution of marriage between him and the respondent, is before this Court in the present appeal. Parties would be referred to in the same ranking as before the Family Court.

2. The facts are briefly set out herein below :

(a) The petitioner had married the respondent on 12.09.2010 at Tirupati Thirumala Devasthanam, Tirupathi. At the time of marriage, he was working in a private company at Chennai, on daily wage basis, and within two months of his marriage, he had set up a separate residence at Thiruverkadu in Chennai.

(b) The petitioner is a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and the respondent had studied upto 10th standard.

(c) The petitioner would submit that his marital life with the respondent was normal for the first three months, and thereafter, the respondent showed her true colours which is aggressive in nature. Out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a son Dharshan on 25.12.2011.

(d) The petitioner would allege that the respondent was very critical about his earnings and she never respected the petitioner and his family members.

(e) The petitioner would submit that the respondent's father had died when she was 7 years old, and since then, she was under the care of her mother, Gnanasundari. The respondent's mother was doing coolie work in Chennai. The respondent's mother and her sisters very often visit the respondent and stayed in her house for 3 to 4 days, during which time, the respondent behaved violently with the respondent.

(f) The petitioner accused the respondent of his poor income and would insult him often, stating that she never wanted to marry him but for the compulsion of her grandmother, and had she not married the petitioner, she would have got married into a wealthy family and led a luxurious life.

(g) The petitioner would contend that after his return from job, the respondent instead of taking care of the petitioner, used to pick up quarrel with him and scolded him with filthy language. She was also of a suspicious nature and doubted the petitioner's fidelity, She allegedly threatened the petitioner with police complaints and behaved abnormally.

(h) The respondent also prevented the petitioner from interacting with his son and would not even allow the petitioner to touch him. However, the petitioner tolerated the respondent's conduct for the sake of his two year old son and to save the marriage for the well being of his son.

(i) The petitioner alleges that after he had gone for job, the respondent without informing the petitioner would lock the door and leave to her aunt's place and stayed there for 2 to 3 days. The respondent continued this act not once or twice but on several occasions. On one fine day i.e., on 09.10.2013, when the petitioner questioned this behaviour of the respondent, she immediately walked out of the house abusing the petitioner with unparliamentary words and stated that she would not live with him. Thereafter, the petitioner had requested the respondent several times to return to his home, owever, she refused to come back and stay with him.

(j) While so, on 23.10.2013 at about 12.00 p.m., the respondent along with her mother, aunt and other relatives came to the petitioner's house and brutally attacked him with a wooden log. The petitioner who ran out of his house for rescue had taken shelter at his parent's house. Thereafter, on 25.10.2013, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before Thiruverkadu Police Station against the respondent and her relatives and the same was taken on file in

CSR.No.561 of 2013.

(k) The petitioner would allege that the respondent and her mother are preventing him to see his minor son. He would submit that his life is at peril in the hands of the respondent and her relatives. The petitioner would submit that his marriage had irretrievably broken, inspite of his best efforts for rejoining, and that no useful purpose would serve in continuing the marriage. Therefore, he had filed the petition for divorce.

3.1 The respondent has filed a counter denying the allegations contained in the petition. She would submit that the averments in the petition alleging about her behaviour and conduct are absolutely false. She would submit that her husband was totally indifferent to her and to her son, that even when the child was unwell, he never cared or took him to the hospital for treatment. The respondent would submit that she was contented with the earnings of the petitioner and met the family expenditure within the petitioner's income. On one occasion, the petitioner and his mother pushed her out of the matrimonial home and despite the best efforts of the respondent's mother and her relatives for reunion, the same turned futile. The petitioner and the respondent are distant relatives and are known to each other and the petitioner had voluntarily married her and was never forced into marrying her. The respondent would submit that she suffered at the hands of the petitioner's mother and sister. The respondent was made to do all household chores. The petitioner who was prone to alcohol abuse, had behaved cruelly with the respondent and beat her without any reason.

3.2 The respondent would submit that her mother owns 5 cents of property in Thiruverkadu and the appellant had demanded the same to be transferred in his name. When this was not accepted by the respondent, the petitioner had physically tortured her and thrown her out of the matrimonial home along with her son. The petitioner has no love for his son Dharshan. She would submit that the petitioner had filed for divorce, based on false allegations, to cover up his own acts of cruelty. The respondent would submit that despite she was subjected to ill treatment, she is ready to rejoin the petitioner for the sake of her child. Therefore, she sought for the dismissal of the petition for divorce.

4. Before the Family Court, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P11. On the side of respondent, the respondent-wife examined herself as R.W.1 and marked only one document viz., Ext.R1.

5. The learned Family Judge has raised the following points for consideration :

1. Whether the petitioner was ill-treated cruelly by the respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty?

3. What other reliefs the parties are entitled to?

6. The learned III Additional Family Judge, Chennai, on perusing the documents and evidence, held that the petitioner/husband has not proved any of the allegations made by him in his petition, and dismissed the HMOP.

7. Aggrieved by the dismissal of HMOP.No.1397 of 2014, the appellant/petitioner is before this Court.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials placed on record.

9. From the evidence, it appears that the allegation of the appellant/petitioner that within three months of the marriage, they had set up a separate residence is incorrect as the evidence of R.W.2 would clearly show that the appellant and respondent had set up a separate residence only after the birth of her son. She would submit that her son was born on 25.12.2011 and after her child's birth, she stayed in her mother's home for 7 months and thereafter returned to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she was again sent back to her mother's house for two months by her mother-in-law, informing her that a separate house for the couple would be set up. While so, a house was taken on lease where separate residence was set up, in which the petitioner and the respondent resided for one year. She would also depose that the respondent's mother had contributed Rs.5,000/- towards lease amount. It is also submitted that since the petitioner's own house did not have sufficient space, they stayed in his parent's house during the day and at night they would leave for the leased premises. Thereafter, on completion of lease period, they moved to a rented house. This fact has not been stated by the petitioner in his petition for divorce

10. It is seen from the evidence that the appellant/petitioner had not proved any of the allegations made by him against the respondent with reference to her behaviour. The allegation of the petitioner that the respondent- wife did not take care of his son, has been disproved from his own cross- examination where he himself has admitted that his wife is taking care of his son's monthly expenses as he is only earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month. The allegation that he has been prevented from visiting is son, has also not been proved. The fact that the respondent was abused by her in-laws is evident from the perusal of Ext.R1, the complaint lodged by the respondent on 25.10.2013. The grounds for lodging the above complaint is that while she was feeding her child, she was attacked by her mother-in-law with a mop-stick, and was driven out of the matrimonial house, for the reason that the respondent's

mother had not transferred the land measuring about 5 cents situated at Thiruverkadu in the name of the petitioner, as agreed at the time of marriage. However, the allegation of the petitioner that he was brutally attacked by the respondent's relatives had not been proved. That it is the petitioner who had sent away the respondent from the matrimonial abode, is evident from his cross- examination where has stated as follows : " vd; kidtpia tPl;il tpl;L btspapy; mDg;g[k;nghJ FHe;ijf;F 1½ taJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/" Therefore, the allegations of the petitioner that the respondent had caused cruelty to him stands disproved. The trial Court has rightly analysed the evidence and dismissed the petition for divorce. We see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in HMOP.No.1397 of 2014, and this Court is in agreement with the order passed in HMOP.No.1397 of 2014.

11. Though the court notice has not been served on the respondent and the private notice has been returned with an endorsement 'unclaimed', this Court, in the absence of the respondent, has proceeded to pass the order, as this Court is in acceptance of the order of the learned Family Judge.

12. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DS To:

1. The III Additional Principal Judge Family Court Chennai.

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

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. DS CMA No. 3586 of 2021 and CMP No. 20974 of 2021 29-09-2026