CMA/1697/2021 of POONGUZHALI Vs K.KUMAR on 24 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The respondent/wife, against whom a decree dissolving her marriage with the petitioner/husband has been passed, is the appellant before this Court.

2. The short facts necessary for disposing of the above Appeal are set out hereinbelow and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Family Court.

3. The petitioner had filed H.M.O.P.No.16 of 2020 on the file of the Family Court, Tiruvannamalai, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had married the respondent as per Hindu rites and customs at Meenakshi Kalyana Mandapam, Tiruvannamalai. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was serving in the Police Department and was stationed at Kannamangalam Village. He would submit that the respondent stayed with him only for a week and thereafter left for her mother's house. Since the petitioner was in a transferable job, he did not insist upon the respondent sto stay with him.

5. The petitioner would submit that out of the wedlock, two sons were born. The two sons were residing at Tiruvannamalai with the respondent. It is his contention that he and the respondent had stayed together only for 6 to 7 months from the date of their marriage.

6. The petitioner would further submit that his mother-in-law had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from one Rathidevi for completing the construction work and that he had repaid the said amount by foreclosing the policy which he had taken in the names of his sons.

7. He would submit that the respondent had a suspicious mind and would suspect him of having an illicit relationship with his female colleagues. When he was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Kilpennathur, the respondent had suspected that the petitioner was having an illicit relationship with one Saraswathi. Again, when the petitioner was posted at Kadaladi, the respondent was under the impression that he was having an affair with one Parimala, who was working in the same Police Station. The respondent created a wrong impression about his conduct and character, which, according to the petitioner, affected his mental and physical health.

8. He would further submit that the respondent had lodged several complaints against the petitioner, which was yet another form of cruelty inflicted upon him.

9. The petitioner would submit that all these acts had caused him immense hardship and mental agony. Therefore, he sought dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty.

10. The respondent filed a counter denying the allegations contained in the petition relating to cruelty.

11. The respondent would submit that the allegation that she had a suspicious mind was totally false. On the contrary, according to her, all her allegations were true. The petitioner was in the habit of having illicit intimacy with other women and had started ill-treating the respondent. The allegation that the petitioner was forced to foreclose the policy taken in the names of his sons was absolutely false. On the contrary, the petitioner was having an illicit relationship with one Rathidevi and wanted to marry her. Therefore, the respondent had gone to the house of the said Rathidevi and asked her to leave the petitioner, for which the said Rathidevi had demanded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The said amount was also paid to Rathidevi by the respondent's father. Even thereafter, the petitioner and the said Rathidevi continued to live together.

12. The respondent would submit that in the year 2007, the petitioner was transferred to Kilpennathur Police Station, where he had developed an illicit relationship with a lady Sub-Inspector of Police, namely, Saraswathi, and used to bring her into the house and indulge in immoral activities with her. Again, when he was working at Kadaladi Police Station, he had developed an illicit relationship with another Sub-Inspector of Police, namely, Parimala.

13. The respondent would submit that, though she and her parents had lodged complaints against the petitioner before his higher authorities, during the course of enquiry, the petitioner had convinced the respondent and her parents to withdraw the complaints and, with a view to arrive at an amicable settlement, the respondent and her parents had withdrawn the complaints.

14. Added to this, the petitioner's mother and sister had demanded a sum of Rs.60,000/- as dowry and gold jewels weighing 50 sovereigns from her father. As dowry, the respondent's father had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 22.05.2002 and had given gold jewels weighing 35 sovereigns. Apart from the same, he had given 106 items of ever-silver utensils and 6 items of brass utensils as Sridhana. Since the respondent's father had paid less dowry, the petitioner's mother and sister had always ridiculed the respondent and demanded that the balance dowry be paid. They had also stated that the respondent should not visit her parents' house unless the balance dowry was paid.

15. The respondent would further submit that the petitioner, by way of legal notices, had insisted that the respondent give her consent for divorce. It is her contention that the petitioner was seeking to dissolve the marriage on the basis of false allegations. He had deserted her and left her and the children in the lurch.

16. The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. The respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and did not mark any documents.

17. The learned Family Court Judge, on considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, held that the respondent had not proved the allegations regarding the petitioner's illicit intimacy with various women and, therefore, held that such allegations amounted to mental cruelty. On the said ground, the petition was allowed. Challenging the same, the respondent is before this Court.

18. When the matter had come up on 13.08.2026, it was reported by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife that despite the decree for divorce the petitioner was continuing to live with the respondent and her sons. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a Police Officer, this Court, by order dated 13.08.2026, directed the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, to verify and submit a report to this Court as to whether the respondent continued to reside in the quarters allotted to the petitioner and to ascertain whether they were living together.

19. A report dated 11.09.2026 has been submitted, wherein it was stated as follows:- “5.It is submitted that, the Respondent, K. Kumar, Inspector of Police, was earlier serving in the Anti-Child Trafficking Unit, Kallakurichi District and was transferred to Tiruvannamalai Town Crime Police Station on 16.10.2024. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Investigative Crime Unit on Crimes Against Women, Vellore District, and was relieved from Tiruvannamalai Town Crime Police Station on 25.02.2026.

6. It is submitted that, during the period from 16.10.2024 to 25.02.2026, the Respondent, K. Kumar, was not allotted any official residential quarters in Tiruvannamalai Sub-Division/District. Hence, the question of the Appellant, Poonguzhali, residing with the Respondent in any official quarters allotted to him in Tiruvannamalai does not arise. Moreover, the Respondent, K. Kumar, had claimed House Rent Allowance (HRA) from the Department for the period from November 2024 to February 2026.

7. It is further verified from the relevant records that no Police Quarters within the Tiruvannamalai Sub-Division were allotted to K. Kumar during his tenure from 16.10.2025 to 25.02.2026 at Tiruvannamalai Town Crime Police Station.

8. It is submitted that, during the course of verification, it is ascertained that the Appellant, Poonguzhali and the Respondent, K. Kumar, were not residing together along with their children.

9. It is submitted that, it was also ascertained that during his tenure at Tiruvannamalai Town Crime Police Station K.Kumar, was residing at D.No.635/E1, Edukku Pillaiyar Koil 4th Street, Vengikkal Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk

and

District.

10. It is further ascertained that the Appellant, Poonguzhali, and the Respondent, K. Kumar, along with their children, had participated together in a family get-together held on the occasion of the birthday celebration of one of their family members at D.No.635/E1, Edukku Pillaiyar Koil 4th Street, Vengikkal Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and District, which is stated to be the residence of his mother, Tmt. Santha. During the said family gathering, some photographs were taken in which the Appellant and the Respondent, along with their children, are seen participating in the celebration together.”

20. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent produced further photographs and, as a result, this Court being not satisfied with the report dated 11.09.2026 issued directions to Mr.S.Shanmugam, Inspector of Police, Kadaladi Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District, to personally visit the place of residence of the respondent, enquire into the matter and submit a report. He was also permitted to interact with his counterpart at Kallakurichi, where the petitioner was originally working.

21. Pursuant to the said order, a report has been submitted today before this Court. The report would read as follows:- “4. It is respectfully submitted that during the said enquiry, the appellant Tmt. Poonguzhali was examined. She stated that she had married the respondent K. Kumar and that they have two children, namely Manikandan and Lingeswaran. She further stated that a decree of divorce had been passed by the learned Family Court, Tiruvannamalai. She also stated that the respondent is presently residing in rented accommodation at Vellore on account of his present posting and is presently working as an Inspector at IUCAW (Investigative Unit on Crime Against Women), Vellore District.

5. It is respectfully submitted that she further stated that the respondent frequently visits her residence at Deepam Nagar, meets their children and, on certain occasions, stays at the said residence. She further stated that the respondent comes to Tiruvannamalai during weekends and spends time with the children. It is further submitted that the appellant also stated that the respondent had received medical treatment at Vellore and that she had attended to him during the period of his illness.

6. It is respectfully submitted that, in order to ascertain the factual position independently, local enquiry was also conducted and the following persons residing in the locality were examined:

(i) Tmt. Deiva, aged about 47 years, W/o. Muthukumar, residing at No.519, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Deepam Nagar, Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai.

(ii) Tmt. Saithani, aged about 55 years, W/o. Mohamed Mustafa.

(iii) Thiru. Kamalakannan, aged about 68 years, S/o. Chinnasamy, residing at No.689/1, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Deepam Nagar, Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai.

7. It is respectfully submitted that the above local witnesses stated during the course of enquiry that they had seen the respondent frequently visiting the residence of the appellant, meeting the children and, on certain occasions, staying at the said residence.

8. It is respectfully submitted that Tmt. Deiva stated that she had personally seen the respondent visiting the residence of the appellant and that, during August 2026, he had stayed at the said residence for about four to five days. It is further submitted that Tmt. Saithani stated that, after taking residence in the said locality, she had seen the respondent visiting the residence of the appellant, meeting the children and, on certain occasions, staying there during night time and one Thiru. Kamalakannan also stated that he had personally seen the respondent frequently visiting the residence of the appellant and meeting the children and that, on certain occasions, he had also seen the respondent staying there. He further stated that he had seen the appellant taking the respondent to Amutham Clinic, Tiruvannamalai, for medical treatment by Dr. Vinothkannan.

10. It is respectfully submitted that, based on the enquiry conducted by me, it has been revealed that the respondent, namely K. Kumar, has been frequently visiting the residence of the appellant at No.518, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Deepam Nagar, Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai, meeting the children and, on certain occasions, staying at the said residence. The said fact has also been corroborated by the local witnesses examined during the course of enquiry. It is further submitted that the respondent, Thiru. K. Kumar, had a house bearing Door No. 635/E1, Edukku Pillaiyar Koil 4th Street, Vengikal Village, Tiruvannamalai District, which is situated within a distance of about 3 kilometres from the appellant's residence. At present, the said house is being occupied by the respondent's sister.”

22. A mere reading of the above report, which has not been rebutted by the petitioner, makes it clear that even after the decree of divorce, the petitioner continued to cohabit with his wife. By doing so, he had condoned the acts of cruelty alleged by him in his petition.

23. Further, the petitioner, who had come forward with a case that he had suffered cruelty at the hands of the respondent, has failed to prove the same. The Family Court Judge had simply proceeded on a presumption that, since the allegations of illicit intimacy had not been proved by the respondent, the same amounted to cruelty, solely on the basis of the oral evidence of P.W.1. The

Family Court Judge had relied upon the oral evidence of the petitioner but had failed to consider the evidence placed by the respondent.

24. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner had failed to prove his case and also taking into consideration the fact that even after the decree of divorce, he continued to live with the respondent for days together, the decree for divorce granted by the Family Court Judge cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

25. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the fair and decreetal order passed by the Family Court Judge, Tiruvannamalai in HMOP No.16 of 2020 dated 11.12.2020 is set aside. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 24-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SHR To The Family Court, Tiruvannamalai.

P.T.ASHA, J. AND N.MALA, J. SHR CMA No. 1697 of 2021 and CMP.No. 8984 of 2021 24-09-2026 (1/2)