CMA/3296/2026 of J.Indira Vs M.Anbu on 28 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Mala J.)

(1) The wife has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, against the fair and decreetal order passed in OP.No.4243/2017, dated 02.07.2026, granting divorce to the husband under the provisions of Section 13[1][ia] of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2) The parties will be referred to as husband and wife.

(3) The facts in brief are that, the couple entered into an arranged marriage on 09.12.2012, which was solemnised as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, a male child was born on 25.10.2013. According to the husband, trouble arose even from the first night of the marriage when the wife expressed her dissatisfaction over the marriage with him. However, for the next three days, there was no trouble. The husband further alleged that the wife was very indifferent towards his family members and himself and was always sitting idle in the house with mood swings. The husband further stated that after marriage, the wife, went for work for a month and thereafter, since she conceived, she resigned her job. The husband further alleged that after they visited the wife’s paternal home for ‘Thalai Pongal’ and for ‘changing Thaali saradu’, the attitude of the wife, on returning to the matrimonial home completely changed. She used to very often go to her paternal home on the pretext of medical check up and without informing him. Therefore, frequent quarrels arose between them. The husband alleged that though his family members took care of her she was not happy and used to find fault with them. In the ninth month of pregnancy, the wife was left for her matrimonial home for ‘baby shower’ function and at that time, she took away all her jewels and clothes with her. The husband alleged that after the birth of the child, he and his family members immediately rushed to the hospital and saw the child and later, informed the wife’s parents to send her back to the matrimonial home along with the child in the third month. The husband alleged that whenever he visited the wife’s paternal home, he was not allowed to see his child on some pretext or other and even the gifts purchased by him, were not given to the child. The husband alleged that despite his requests to the wife to join him, she refused and on 08.03.2015, she lodged a false complaint against him and his family members before W-15 All Women Police Station, Peravallur, alleging that he and his family members demanded dowry. The husband stated that the police officials on enquiry, advised her to rejoin him, but she was not willing to join him. The husband stated that immediately on the very next day, the wife preferred another complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai, where also she was advised to resume her matrimonial life, however, she refused and went to her paternal home. While so, on 15.04.2015, the wife sent a legal notice to the husband claiming money and share in the house property of the husband and thereafter, on 20.04.2015, she sent another notice claiming maintenance for herself and her child. The husband alleged that in none of the said notices, the wife expressed her willingness to join him. The husband sent a reply notice on 28.04.2015, expressing his willingness to resume the marital life. Unfortunately, the wife did not reciprocate, but instead, filed a Maintenance Case in MC.No.185/2015, before the I Additional Family Court. The husband thereafter filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP.No.2137/2015 and on receipt of summons, in the said HMOP, the wife filed a domestic violence case in

DVC.No.19/2015, against the husband and his family members, before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur. The husband further stated that in the HMOP filed by him, in the Lok Adalat held on 09.09.2017, the Mediators advised the couple to live peacefully, but the wife was adamant and refused to join him. The husband, therefore was constrained to withdraw the petition filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP.No.2137/2015 on 06.11.2017. Since they were separate from December, 2013, he was constrained to file the present petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty by invoking Section 13[1][ia] of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(4) The wife filed a detailed counter, denying all the allegations made by the husband, while admitting the marriage solemnised on 09.12.2012 and the birth of the male child on 25.10.2013. The wife contended that her parents had spent huge amount of Rs.6 lakhs for her marriage apart from gifting 30 sovereigns of gold jewels and other stridhana articles. The wife alleged that HMOP.No.2137/2015, for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by her husband only after she filed the petition for maintenance in MC.No.185/2015, with a view to evade payment of maintenance to her and her child. According to the wife, DVC.No.19/2015, before the Judicial

Magistrate, Ambattur, was filed only as a protection order, not to alienate her husband’s assets, residence and for interim maintenance for herself and her child. She stated that in the said case, the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- was directed to be paid to her son and herself. The wife alleged that only after the order was passed in DVC case, directing interim maintenance, the husband withdrew HMOP.No.2137/2015 on 06.11.2017, filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights and thereafter, filed the divorce petition on 17.11.2017 in OP.No.4243/2017. The wife further stated that final orders in DVC.No.19/2015, came to be passed on 05.02.2012, allowing the petition, granting maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the child and that, aggrieved by the said order, both she and her husband preferred appeals before the III Additional Sessions Court, at Poonamallee. The wife stated that the divorce petition was filed on false and non-existent grounds only to shy away from the liability of maintaining herself and her son. She further alleged that the husband had no affection for herself and her son and was only targetting her salary and dowry. The wife, in her affidavit, extensively narrated the incidents of ill-treatment and harassment for dowry by the husband and his family members. The wife alleged that it was the husband who informed her that she was not suitable for him and that, he would have received much more dowry, had he married any other girl. The wife further alleged that the husband used to repeatedly torture her by asking her to die and also threatened to kill her. The wife alleged that it was the husband who humiliated her in front of her in-laws and even refused to provide her the minimum comforts of live and respect as a wife. She alleged that the husband used to look for opportunities to quarrel and humiliate her. The wife further alleged that even her in-laws supported her husband by not questioning him for his deviated behaviour. The wife therefore contended that there were no merits in the petition and the same deserved to be dismissed.

(5) Before the Family Court, the husband examined himself as PW1 and marked 10 documents. The wife examined herself as RW1 and marked 15 documents.

(6) The Family Court, after framing the point for consideration, and on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, found favour with the husband and allowed the petition for dissolution of marriage. Aggrieved by the fair and decreetal order passed by the Family Court, the wife is before us.

(7) The learned counsel for the wife contended that the findings of the Family Court on cruelty, was ex facie illegal since the Court below failed to note that the wife was only availing the statutory remedies for agitating her rights and therefore the finding of the Family Court that filing of various petitions/cases by the wife amounted to cruelty, was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

(8) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and we find no merit in the appeal for the reasons to be stated hereinafter and hence, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

(9) The chronology of facts are that, on 09.12.2012, the couple 's marriage was solemnised as per Hindu rites and customs and out of the wedlock, a male child was born on 25.10.2013. The husband alleged that the wife left for her paternal home in the ninth month of pregnancy and even after the birth of the child in October 2013, she continued to stay with her parents. The husband alleged that on 08.03.2015, the wife filed a false complaint against his family members and him, before W-15 All Women Police Station, Peravallur, for dowry harassment, and on the very next day, she replicated the complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai.

He further alleged that in both the complaints, she was advised to resume the matrimonial life., however, she refused to return to the matrimonial home. The husband further alleged that on 15.04.2015, the wife sent a legal notice, claiming money and a share in the house property of the husband and followed it up with another legal notice on 20.04.2015, claiming maintenance for herself and her child. The husband contended that he sent a reply on 28.04.2015, asking her to resume the marital life, but instead of resuming the conjugal relationship, she preferred a maintenance case in MC.No.185/2015, for maintenance. The husband thereafter filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP.No.2137/2015, in the month of June, 2015. On receipt of the summons in the said petition, the wife filed a domestic violence case in DVC.No.19/2015, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, against the husband and his family members. On 09.09.2017, a Lok Adalat was conducted in HMOP.No.2137/2015, and despite mediation to resume conjugal life, the wife refused and thereafter, the husband, on 06.11.2017, withdrew HMOP.No.2137/2015 and thereafter, filed the present petition for divorce.

(10) While so, in DVC.No.19/2015, final order was passed on 05.02.2021, and the maintenance case was ordered on 18.09.2024. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, in the Domestic Violence Case, ordered maintenance only for the minor child. However, the Family Court, in MC.No.185/2015, awarded maintenance for both the wife as well the minor child, without considering the monetary benefit granted in DVC.No.19/2015. Both the husband and wife, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, preferred appeal before the Appellate Court. Even the Appellate Court granted maintenance only to the minor child and against the said order, no revision was preferred by either parties.

(11) From the chronology of events, it is clear that the wife filed the domestic violence as also the maintenance case against the husband and in the domestic violence case, maintenance was granted only to the minor child, but in the maintenance case, maintenance was granted to both wife as well as the minor son. It is seen that while passing orders in DVC.No.19/2015, the learned Judicial Magistrate, in the order, dated 05.02.2021, considered the wife's allegation of dowry harassment and ill-treatment and on the basis of the evidence before him, found that the allegations of the wife against the husband and his family, were not believable. The learned Judicial Magistrate also found that the wife had not approached the Court with complete facts. The learned Magistrate further found that the wife had failed to lead any corroborative evidence to prove the allegations made by her against the husband and therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate, rejected the wife's prayer to punish the husband for the offences under the Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate further rejected the wife's claim for compensation of Rs.15 lakhs. In the appeal, the Appellate Court held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance and only the son was entitled to maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of petition, with the arrears payable within two months. No revision was preferred against the order of the Appellate Court by either parties.

(12) The aforesaid orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, as well as the Appellate Court were marked as Ex.R9 and Ex.P9. The Family Court, on the basis of the aforesaid orders, finding that the wife had given false complaints against the husband and his family members, i.e., his parents, sister and brother, held that the filing of the false complaints itself amounted to an act of cruelty..

(13) The wife, in her cross-examination, tried to justify the domestic violence complaint by stating that only with a fond hope that the husband will join her, she filed the complaint. As rightly pointed out by the Family Court, if really her intention in filing the domestic violence case was only to live with the husband, she could pretty well have joined him, either pursuant to his reply notice dated 28.04.2015, inviting her to resume the marital life, or during mediation before the Lok Adalat held on 09.09.2017. The fact that she did not use the aforesaid opportunities to rejoin the husband, shows that her real intention was only to have better bargaining power.

(14) Since the allegations of the wife regarding dowry harassment and ill- treatment by the husband and his family members, was found to be false, by the DVC Court, as rightly found by the Family Court, such filing of false complaints, knowing fully well that it would bring disrepute to the family, itself constitutes cruelty.

(15) In our view, since the wife's allegation of dowry harassment and ill- treatment were categorically held to be unbelievable by the learned Judicial Magistrate, as well as the Appellate Court, the Family Court was right in relying on the said orders, since the factual findings by a competent judicial

Court, constitutes a critical piece of evidence. In our further view, the judgment of the Courts in DVC case, both original as well as Appellate, which have factually recorded that the allegations of the wife were unbelievable, clearly prove that the husband was subjected to a vexatious legal trial, based on falsehoods.

(16) It is trite that in divorce matters, cruelty is to be evaluated on preponderance of probabilities. Since there are judicial orders, in Exs.P9 and R9, dismissing the wife's allegations against the husband, we are of the view that the husband has established his case of cruelty. It is well settled that foisting of false cases itself amount to structural mental cruelty causing immense trauma, damage to social reputation and makes it impossible for the couple to lead a peaceful marital life. We find that filing of false complaints against the husband and domestic violence case against him and his family members including his sister and brother, were only tactical weapons to coerce the husband into paying more alimony. We therefore, find that there is absolutely no merits in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.

(17) At this juncture, we deem it worthy to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in SLP.[Crl].No.18035/2025 dated 29.05.2026 [2026 INSC 587] [Ishwar Chand Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another], wherein the Apex Court, following its judgment in Dara Lakshmi Narayana Vs. State of Bihar [2025 [3] SCC 735] and Geddam Jhansi Vs. State of Telengana [2025 SCC Online SC 263], highlighted the sanctity attached to the institution of marriage and the growing trend of vexatious litigations in the realm of matrimonial disputes.

(18) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs No.10, 10.1 and 10.2 held as follows:- ''10.Before parting we observe that Indian society treats the institution of marriage as sacrosanct and as a sublime union of two individuals. This status or position ascribed to marriage comes from deep historical and sociological roots where the institution of marriage is considered the very foundation of society and family being the most fundamental social unit and conglomeration of humans.

10.1. Vexatious litigation in the realm of matrimonial disputes based on frivolous and false allegations should be discouraged by the courts and the members of the bar. Advocates ought to advise their clients against the initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings against their spouses rather than encouraging them to do so. In this aspect, we find it appropriate to quote the observations of this Court in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana, (2025) 3 SCC 756 wherein this Court observed that: “... the learned members of Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.”

10.2 It is pertinent to underscore the important role played by the legal fraternity in bringing down the overall pendency of the cases in the Family Courts and criminal cases which are an adjunct to matrimonial disputes by weeding out unimportant and vexatious proceedings undertaken in pursuance of a personal vendetta by unscrupulous litigants so as to fillip attention of the courts towards genuine litigation and pressing issues and adjudication of claims. This would lead to increasing the overall efficiency and disposal of cases while at the same time preventing infraction of the interests of justice and abuse of process of law. ''

(19) We find that the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, squarely applies to the facts of the present case since we find that the allegations made by the wife against the husband, appear to have been made out of sheer rancour and ill-will, without any truth in them. We find from the counter affidavit of the wife that she has only unsuccessfully tried to justify her separation from the husband while at the same time, trying to strike a better deal for herself and her son. The very fact that the wife stayed in the matrimonial home only for a few months shows that she had not given any time for the marriage to stabilise and mature. In every marriage, there are bound to be initial hiccups and it is the couple’s responsibility to erase the differences and try to resolve the disagreements, to ensure that the marital tie is not broken and the promise of marriage that is made for continued togetherness for generations is carried out in letter and spirit.

(20) In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed and the Fair and Decreetal order dt. 02.07.2026, made in OP No. 4243 of 2017, by the Learned V Additional Family Court, Chennai, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP

1. The V Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

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

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 3296 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 25699 OF 2026 28-09-2026