CMA/293/2022 of MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs R.MEENAKSHI on 28 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The appellant in this case is the husband, whose petition for divorce (O.P. No. 3236 of 2017) was dismissed by the IV Additional Family Court, Chennai. The short facts which had given raise to this appeal are as follows. The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.

2. The petitioner submits that he had married the respondent on 04.09.2011, as per Hindu rites and ceremony at Chennai. After the marriage, they had resided together at the petitioner’s residence and out of this wedlock they had no issues. It is his contention that within 3 months from the marriage, he had come to know about the true character of the respondent. The petitioner submits that the respondent was not interested in discharging her conjugal duties and after few days of marriage, difference of opinion arise among them.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent was doubtful about the petitioner’s character and would use abusive language. The petitioner did not take this matter seriously, in the fond hope that the respondent would change her attitude and act as a dutiful wife. However, his hopes were in vain. He would further submit that the respondent not only used abusive language, but would also not do any domestic work. Further, she was in the habit of returning to her parental home and after the elders negotiation would return to her matrimonial home. He would submit that several such panchayats had taken place. He would submit that in the month of March 2016, the respondent had left her matrimonial home, never to return. All of these caused severe mental cruelty to the appellant and therefore, he has come forward to file a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

4. The respondent / wife has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations containing in the petition for divorce. The respondent would submit that difference of opinion arose between the petitioner’s mother and herself and that she was ill-treated on the ill advice of the parents and the relatives of the petitioner. It is her case that she has discharged her duties as wife and had fulfilled all her matrimonial obligations. It is also her case that she has regularly done domestic work.

5. The respondent submits that on 04.04.2016, she was taken to her parental home and was asked to stay there for two days. However, the petitioner did not come forward to take her back and had said that after two months he would take her back. She would further submit that she has cooperated with the petitioner for the medical check-up for conceiving.

6. It is her case that on 04.04.2016, when she had left with her husband, she had no intention of leaving her matrimonial home and she had left all her jewels at her matrimonial home. When the appellant did not come forward to take her back, panchayat was held and despite elders trying to mediate, the petitioner and his parents did not evince any interest in taking her back. She would submit that cruelty was on the part of the petitioner and not on her part. However, she had submitted that she is willing to rejoin her husband. She therefore sought dismissal of the petition.

7. The learned Family Judge, had framed the following point for consideration: “Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty?

8. The petitioner had examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The respondent on the other hand had examined herself as PW1 but had not marked any documents. Both sides had submitted oral as well as written arguments and the learned Judge ultimately held that the petitioner had not proved his case of cruelty and dismissed the petition.

9. Challenging the same, the petitioner / husband is before this Court.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant / petitioner would contend that the respondent was in the habit of quarrelling and leaving matrimonial home for long time and only after panchayat she would return. By her action, she failed to perform her matrimonial obligations and this was causing grave injustice and mental agony / cruelty to the petitioner.

11. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent in her cross examination has stated that she was not ill-treated by her husband, but his parents. She would further submit that the respondent had made unsubstantiated allegations against the petitioner and had even threatened to initiate action for defamation against him, which would go to show that the respondent was not interested in continuing the matrimonial life. She also submitted that they have been living separately since 2016, and there is no possibility of a reconciliation.

12. Per contra, Mr. P.S.Vasanthakumar, appearing on behalf of the respondent/wife, submitted that she had no major issues with her husband, and it was only the mother-in-law who was causing a rift between the husband and wife. The learned counsel would submit that the respondent had performed her matrimonial duties and the allegations to the contrary are totally false. He submitted that although there were usual quarrels between the couple, the issue escalated in the year 2016 when her brother- in-law got married, as she was asked to give up her bedroom to accommodate the newlyweds. The learned counsel would submit that she only wanted to continue her matrimonial life with her husband, appellant herein. Therefore, he prayed that the order of the Family Court, be upheld.

13. Heard the learned counsels on the either side and perused the records.

14. The grounds on which the petition for divorce has been filed are as follows:

(a) Mental cruelty.

(b) No cohabitation.

15. The allegation of mental cruelty that has been made out against the respondent are as follows:

(a) The respondent was doubtful about the petitioner’s character and abuse him using filthy language.

(b) The respondent neither did domestic work nor interacted with anyone and was showing a total lack of interest in household chores.

(c) The respondent would leave her matrimonial home and stay in her parental home for considerable period of time.

(d) The respondent had left her matrimonial home without reason and had refused to return.

16. To prove the allegation of cruelty as also the non cohabitation, it is only the evidence of the petitioner that is available. In his cross examination, he has admitted that the house in which they were staying was a small flat containing two bed rooms. The petitioner’s parents lived in one bedroom, while the petitioner and the respondent stayed in the other. He would also admit that his brother got married in the year 2016 and was accommodated in his house. The respondent has in her counter as well as evidence stated that in the year 2016, it was her husband who had taken her and left her in the parental home stating that he would return in two weeks, but later requested her to stay for two months. This would confirm the contention of the respondent that it is after the marriage of the petitioner’s brother that problems had arisen on account of the respondent having to give up her bedroom for a newly wedded brother in law and his wife. This request, to say the least is demeaning the respondent in front of the brother and his wife and which is an affront to her dignity. It would have definitely caused a great deal of agony to the respondent despite which she is willing to rejoin the petitioner. Except for oral evidence of the petitioner none of the statement made by him has been substantiated by him.

17. That apart, the allegation of non cohabitation cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the petitioner in his own evidence would submit that he has taken his wife and visiting several doctors.

18. Therefore, in the light of the above the finding and the order of the IV Additional Family Court, Chennai, cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KAN

To The IV Additional Family Court, Chennai.

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. KAN CMA No. 293 of 2022 28-09-2026