CMA/2927/2018 of MUTHUKUMARAN Vs MALARVIZHI on 25 September 2026

Common Judgment

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

(1) The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the unsuccessful husband against the order and decreetal order of the Family Court, Pondicherry, dated 31.07.2018, made in MOP.No.282/2007, wherein the petition for divorce filed by the husband, was dismissed and the interlocutory applications filed by the wife for return of jewels listed in the petitions as well as the educational certificates, were allowed vide the aforesaid decreetal order dated 31.07.2018, in IA.Nos.116/2010 and 123/2017.

(2) Since the issues arising in all the three appeals relate to one and the same MOP, the same are taken up together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(3) The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the appeals.

(4) The facts in a nutshell are that, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 24.10.2004, as per Hindu rites and customs in Pondicherry, with the blessings of the elders of both families. The marriage was an arranged marriage. The appellant alleged that after the marriage, the couple led a blissful marital life for some time, and that in course of time, the attitude of the respondent towards the appellant changed. It was alleged that after the birth of the child on 17.08.2005, the respondent had completely neglected the appellant and refused to accede to the wishes of the appellant. The appellant alleged that even from the early days of marriage, the respondent used to coerce him to claim his share of the properties from his father. The appellant alleged that he tried to reason with the respondent that being the only son he would be ultimately succeeding to his father's properties, but the respondent refused to listen to him, causing him mental tension and agony. The appellant further alleged that from 07.08.2005, there was no resumption of conjugal rights, despite his amicable approach. The appellant alleged that the respondent caused him a lot of mental torture by lodging complaints against him befoe the All Women Police Station and in the appellant's place of employment. The appellant stated that not able to tolerate the mental cruelty meted out by the respondent, the appellant was constrained to file the petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

(5) The respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting the marriage and the subsequent birth of the child on 07.08.2005. The respondent denied that she coerced the appellant to claim his share of the properties from his father and she also denied that she troubled him by filing complaints before the All Women Police Station and the appellant's employer. The respondent alleged that the appellant led a wayward life and that he was after the respondent's money and properties. The respondent further contended that the appellant, his sister and father, framed enormous schemes to grab the properties of her parents by making illegal demands for dowry. The respondent alleged that the appellant and his father drove her out of the matrimonial home for not giving the dowry demanded by them. The respondent alleged that the appellant was solely responsible for their separation and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition as meritless.

(6) Before the Family Court, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and marked four documents. The respondent examined herself as RW1, however, she did not mark any documents on her side.

(7) During the pendency of MOP.No.282/2007, the respondent/wife filed IA.No.116/2010 for return of her jewels and the other stridhana articles as listed out in the petition, which were in the custody of the appellant. Subsequently, she filed IA.No.123/2017, for return of the petition listed jewels and also her educational certificates which were in the custody of the appellant.

(8) The Family Court, after framing necessary issues and on appreciation of the evidence, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage, holding that it was the appellant who treated the respondent cruelly and that, he was the cause for the break down of the marital relationship. The Family Court, also allowed the interlocutory applications filed by the respondent seeking return of jewels and her educational certificates listed in the petitions. Aggrieved by the orders of the Family Court, the appellant has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

(9) We have heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed before us.

(10) It is an admitted case that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was an arranged marriage and was solemnised according to the Hindu rites and customs on 24.10.2004, in the presence and with the blessings of the elders and well-wishers. The appellant admitted that in the beginning of the marriage, the couple led an amenable life. However, the appellant contended that in course of time, the attitude of the respondent changed and after the birth of the child on 17.08.2005, she totally neglected him. The appellant alleged that he was put to a lot of mental torture and agony by the repeated demand by the respondent for division of his share in family properties, and her complaints to the police and his employer which constrained him to file the petition for divorce. The respondent denied all the allegations of cruelty and contended that it was the appellant and his father who drove her out of the matrimonial home since she did not bring sufficient dowry. The respondent alleged that the separation of the couple was only due to the appellant's conduct. The Family Court found favour with the respondent. The Family Court found that the appellant had failed to prove the alleged acts of cruelty by the respondent by adducing reliable evidence and that he had voluntarily broken down the marital relationship. Challenging the dismissal of his petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

(11) At the outset, we would like to point out that the incidents of cruelty that are pleaded by the appellant are vague and insufficient to claim divorce. The only acts of cruelty which we can infer from the petition are the alleged repeated demands of the respondent for division of the appellant's share in the family properties and her complaints to the police as well as to the employer. To prove these acts of cruelty, the appellant has examined only himself and has not examined any independent witness. In our view, if the allegations had some basis then the appellant would have examined his father or sister to support his case of cruelty. The reference to the complaints to the All Women Police Station and his employer, are bereft of particulars. The nature of the complaints, date of the complaints and other material particulars are lacking. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient pleadings and independent corroborative evidence, we find absolutely no reason to interfere with the well considered judgment and decree of the Family Court.

(12) We therefore find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant against the fair and decreetal order dated 31.07.2018, in MOP.No.282/2007, and the same are dismissed.

(13) The respondent had originally filed IA.No.116/2010 for return of stridhana properties and jewels as listed in the petition, which were in the custody of the appellant. The petition was allowed, directing the appellant to hand over the petition listed jewels and the stridhana articles which were in his custody save those that were already handed over.

(14) The respondent thereafter filed another application in IA.No.123/2017 for return of the petition listed jewels and the educational certificates. In the order dated 31.07.2018, in IA.No.123/2017, the Family Court recorded that the appellant had no serious objection to allow the petition and that he was ready to return the available properties to the respondent for which the respondent accepted. Since the appellant was ready to return the available properties, the Family Court found no impediment in allowing the application.

(15) We find absolutely no compelling reasons to interfere with the said findings of the Family Court, which are based on the appellant's own statement that he was willing to return the available properties with him, to the respondent.

(16) In view of the above discussions, CMA.Nos.2927, 2860 and 2869/2018 are all dismissed. The fair and decreetal order of the Family Court dated 31.07.2018, made in MOP.No.282/2007 and in IA.Nos.116/2010 and 123/2017, are confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 25-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP

1. The Judge, Family Court, Pondicherry.

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

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 2927 of 2018 AND CMA NO. 2860 OF 2018, CMA NO. 2869 OF 2018, 25-09-2026