CMA/500/2023 of K. Vidhyasagar Vs K. Parameswari on 29 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The husband, whose petition for divorce has been rejected by the Family Court, Salem, is the appellant before this Court.

2. The short facts giving rise to the above appeal are herein below set out.

(i) The appellant herein had filed H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court, Salem seeking dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent solemnized on 27.04.2018 on the ground of cruelty.

(ii) It is the contention of the appellant that the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnized on 27.04.2018 and the expenses for the marriage had been borne by his parents. It is also his contention that their marriage was not consummated on the first night of the marriage and the respondent did not live in harmony with him even for a month. She would quarrel for the most trivial reasons and had also openly stated that she was not interested in the marriage and that she had been compelled to marry him. The communication between the appellant and the respondent was mostly over the mobile phone and whenever the respondent required something, she would text him. The appellant would submit that the respondent had suicidal tendencies and on 20.06.2018 at about 8.45 p.m., she had cut her left wrist with a blade and she was taken to the TCR Hospital, Krishnagiri. The respondent thereafter, on the advice of the elders, had continued to live with the appellant for a few days. Even then, her attitude did not change. The appellant would submit that she was in the habit of going to her mother’s place for days together and the appellant had to go to Krishnagiri and bring her back. After one such return, she had to be admitted to the TCR Hospital for having taken an overdose of medicines. This kind of behaviour was causing a great deal of anxiety to the appellant and his mother. Therefore, the appellant had come forward to file the petition for dissolution of marriage.

3. The respondent had filed a counter denying the allegations and submitted that she was a very affectionate wife and had shown utmost respect to her in-laws and had done all the household chores. She would submit that it was the appellant who was not interested in marital life. The allegation that she had attempted to commit suicide was also termed as false. She would submit that at the time of marriage, she was given 100 sovereigns of gold jewels, silver articles worth about Rs.2,00,000/- and sridhan articles, apart from a Royal Enfield Bullet worth about Rs.1,50,000/-. She would submit that the appellant’s parents insisted on dowry to be given by the respondent and her family members and would ridicule them. The respondent was also informed by a relative of the appellant that she would be driven away from the matrimonial home if she did not give dowry as demanded. She would therefore pray for dismissal of the petition.

4. Ultimately, the learned Judge had framed the following points for determination.

(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage as prayed for?

(ii) Whether the respondent is entitled for maintenance as claimed by her?

(iii) To what relief, the petitioner is entitled?

(iv) To what relief, the respondent is entitled?

5. The appellant had examined himself as P.W1 and one G.Viveganandan as P.W2 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. The respondent, on the other hand, had examined herself as R.W1 and marked Ex.R1. The learned Family Judge had proceeded to dismiss the petition for divorce on the ground that the scar on the left hand, which the appellant claimed was caused when the respondent attempted to slit her wrist, was one that had occurred prior to the marriage and that too by a palm leaf. The learned Family Judge had relied solely upon the evidence of the respondent to come to the conclusion that the consumption of tablets was for allergy purposes. The learned Family Judge has categorically observed that the allegations of dowry made against the appellant stood unproved, but dismissed the petition for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the appellant had not taken steps to bring back his wife. Challenging the said order, the appellant is before this Court.

6. The points that arise for consideration before us are whether the appellant has proved his contentions of cruelty and is therefore entitled to a decree for divorce and whether the Family Judge was correct in rejecting the claim of the appellant?

7. The acts of cruelty that have been pleaded by the appellant are:

(i) That the respondent was not interested in a conjugal relationship.

(ii) That she had suicidal tendencies.

(iii) That she had made unsubstantiated allegations that the appellant had demanded dowry.

8. As regards the first point for consideration, the same has not been adequately proved by the appellant. The respondent, in her chief examination, has admitted that the marriage was consummated, and the same has not been rebutted in her cross-examination.

9. As regards the second point for consideration, three instances had been narrated by the appellant. The first of which was the attempt to jump from the building. Except for the evidence of the appellant as P.W1, there is no other evidence to support the same. However, with reference to the second instance, namely the intake of an overdose of medicine, Ex.P5 has been filed to show that the respondent had been rushed to the TCR Multi Speciality Hospital, Krishnagiri. The diagnosis clearly shows that it is a case of tablet poisoning and the discharge report of the hospital would indicate that the respondent had consumed four paracetamol tablets and four Avil tablets. The contention of the respondent that it was her husband who had given her tablets for allergy cannot be believed for the simple reason that the respondent is an educated lady having completed her Master’s degree in Engineering. Therefore, she would have definitely known that consuming more than four Avil tablets along with paracetamol could be fatal. The allegation that it was the husband who had given the tablets has not been proved. Therefore, from Ex.P5, it is seen that the respondent had consumed an overdose. With reference to the slitting of her wrist, the respondent would submit that the same was caused by a cut that she had suffered while working with palm leaves and the same had happened much prior to the marriage. This statement has not been proved by the respondent through independent evidence, though the fact that there is a slit on the wrist has been admitted by the respondent. However, with reference to the cause, both the appellant and the respondent have two different versions. The reason for the scar has not been mentioned by the respondent in her counter, and the same has been stated for the first time during her evidence.

10. Be that as it may, the respondent having consumed an overdose of tablets stands proved by Ex.P5. This tendency would definitely cause considerable mental pressure on the husband and is definitely an act of cruelty. The Family Judge has clearly observed that the respondent has made wild allegations about the demand for dowry and has held that sufficient evidence has not been adduced to prove the same. Such an unsubstantiated allegation, apart from being defamatory to the appellant, is also an act of cruelty. The Family Judge has accepted the explanation of the respondent without properly appreciating the evidence. With reference to the overdose of medicine and the scar on her hand, it would be inflicting mental cruelty upon the spouse to expect him to continue his matrimonial life with someone who has suicidal tendencies.

Therefore, the grounds of cruelty, Nos.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the appellant. Consequently, the order passed by the Family Judge, Salem, is set aside and a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, solemnized on 27.04.2018, is granted. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SRN To The Family Court Judge, Salem.

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. SRN CMA No. 500 of 2023 29-09-2026