CMA/3033/2019 of MR.BALAN Vs PADMAVATHY on 24 September 2026

JUDGMENT

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

(1) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the Family Court, Cuddalore rejecting the appellant’s petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

(2) The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the appeal.

(3) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant and the respondent got married on 31.08.2006 at Neyveli Township, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. According to the appellant, the respondent lived with him for six months only and after the appellant went for his job the respondent without his knowledge left the matrimonial home. The appellant alleged that the respondent used to regularly visit her parents house, despite his advice not to do so. The appellant further alleged that the respondent pressurised him to set up a separate matrimonial home, and so, in May 2007, he set up a separate matrimonial home, at Dr.Ambedkar Nagar, Vandipalayamin, Cuddalore Taluk. The appellant further alleged that the respondent stayed with him only for 20 days and thereafter she assaulted him and left to her parental home. The appellant hence filed the petition in H.M.O.P.No.119 of 2009, for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant alleged that the respondent made endorsement in the petition stating that she was willing to live with him and therefore the H.M.O.P petition was closed. The appellant contended that despite the endorsement made in the H.M.O.P.No.119 of 2009, the respondent refused to join him and instead, she filed a criminal complaint against him and his family members which was registered as Crime No.148 of 2012 under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 406, 494, 498(A), 506(ii) and 307 IPC. The criminal case was registered as C.C.No.10 of 2015 and was pending before the Additional Mahila Court, Cuddalore. The appellant alleged that the respondent illegally and without any reasonable cause deserted the appellant from 27.05.2007 and that for over 9 ½ years till the date of the petition, there was no connection or cohabitation between the appellant and the respondent. Under the circumstance, the appellant prayed for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion invoking Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The respondent filed elaborate counter denying all the allegations made by the appellant. The respondent alleged that soon after the marriage, she was taken to appellant’s brother’s house to attend to his wife who was sick. The respondent contended that she stayed at the appellant’s house at Neyveli and appellant used to go for work to Nellikuppam from there. The respondent contended that she stayed with the appellant for about 10 days and thereafter she was sent to her parents house in the Tamil month of ‘Purattasi’. The respondent contended that as a dutiful wife and as a person respecting the value of joint family, she discharged her duties with utmost care and affection. However, she was treated like a maid servant by the appellant’s family. The respondent contended that the appellant never bothered to inquire about her welfare and that he never visited her for ‘Thalai diwali’ at her parents place.

The respondent alleged that a panchayat was conducted at the appellant’s brother’s house and after great persuasion and mediation, the appellant agreed to take the respondent to Nellikuppam. The respondent alleged that even in Nellikuppam, the appellant’s mother and his sister stayed with them and made her to do all the household works. The respondent alleged that the appellant left for work even on Sundays and behaved indifferently towards her. When she questioned him and his family members regardig his conduct, they stated that since he married against the family’s wishes, he was evading her and that he would change in due course of time. The respondent contended that because of the indifferent behaviour of the appellant, she had to seek her brother’s help for her basic needs. The respondent also alleged that the appellant developed illegal intimacy with one Pooja, the sister of his colleague. The respondent in her counter referred to several instances where she was humiliated and ill- treated by the appellant and his family members. The respondent also referred to the petition filed by the appellant in H.M.O.P.No.119 of 2009 for restitution of conjugal rights and stated that the petition was an eye wash, since despite the undertaking given by the appellant, to take the respondent back to the matrimonial home, he refused to take her and demanded huge dowry for resuming the conjugal relationship. The respondent further contended that when she and her family members went to the appellant’s house, they found that the door locked and therefore out of sheer helplessness and left with no other option they preferred a compliant before Nellikuppam Police Station. The respondent stated that meanwhile, out of the illicit relationship of the appellant with the said Pooja, two children were born to them and that the illicit relationship left her in shambles. The respondent contended that right from the date of marriage, due to the appellant’s way-ward life, she was left at the mercy of her brother and widowed mother. The respondent prayed for restitution of conjugal rights in her counter.

Before the Family Court, the appellant examined himself as P.W1 and marked four documents. The respondent examined herself as R.W1 and marked two documents.

The Family Court on appreciation of entire evidence on record and after framing necessary issues held that the appellant was not entitled to a decree for divorce. Aggrieved by the fair and decretal order of the Family Court, the appellant has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

The facts are narrated in detail and therefore they are not traversed for the sake of brevity. Suffice it to state that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 31.08.2006 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs and that thereafter matrimonial discord arose between the couple for various reasons. Hence, the appellant filed the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

(8) The only acts of cruelty as per the appellant’s petition are that the respondent demanded a separate matrimonial home in May 2007 and despite endorsing in the H.M.O.P.No.119 of 2009, filed for restitution of conjugal rights, that she would resume conjugal relation, she filed a police complaint on the very same day against the appellant and his family members under various provisions of the IPC. Apart from the aforesaid acts of cruelty, the appellant has not stated any other acts or omissions by the respondent.

The respondent filed detailed counter denying all the allegations made by the appellant against her. The respondent specifically denied that she demanded setting up a separate matrimonial home, at Vandipalayam. The respondent in her counter referred to various incidents to contend that it was the appellant and his family members who had harassed and illtreated her and that it was the appellant who was leading a way-ward life. We are of the view that the detailed discussion on the various incidents referred to by the respondent are not necessary, since the appeal lies within a narrow compass.

As far as the contention regarding demand for setting up of separate matrimonial home is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the allegation. When the respondent has specifically denied that she ever demanded a separate matrimonial home, the burden is heavy on the appellant to establish that she pressed him to set up a separate home and that too without any justification. The appellant has not filed any evidence to show that only because of pressure from respondent he was forced to set up a separate matrimonial home at Ambedkhar Nagar, Vandipalayam, Cuddalore. Therefore in the absence of any supporting evidence, the allegation of the respondent remains unproved.

The other allegation of cruelty against the respondent is that despite her undertaking in H.M.O.P.No.119 of 2009 she refused to join him and filed a false complaint against his family members and himself before Nellikuppam Police Station. It is seen that H.M.O.P.No.119 of 2009 was filed on 01.10.2009 and the judgment was passed on 23.01.2012 on the mutual consent of the parties to resume marital cord. The appellant alleges that the respondent refused to join him and instead of joining him, she filed a false complaint against his family members and himself. In Ex.P4, the Police complaint, the respondent has narrated the entire facts and she specifically stated that when she went to the petitioner’s house she found it was locked and also came to know that he entered into a second marriage. The contention of the respondent that it was the appellant who refused to take her back, because of the second marriage with Pooja is fortified by Ex.P4 and Ex.R1. Ex.R1 is the birth certificate of the girl child born on 22.04.2008, to the appellant out of his illicit relationship with Pooja. Further, when the appellant was confronted with Ex.P4 in his cross examination, he admitted that the girl child born to Pooja was his daughter and that Ex.R1 was the birth certificate. It is therefore clear that even before filing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 01.10.2009 the appellant had a daughter through Pooja, with whom he had an illicit relationship. Therefore the petition in H.M.O.P.No.119 of 2009 was a clever device of the appellant to mislead not only the respondent, but also the Court. Therefore the allegation of the appellant that the lodging of the complaint by the respondent against his family members and himself was an act of cruelty cannot be accepted, since by his conduct the appellant invited the complaint.

We find that the Family Court has appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and has rightly dismissed the petition. We find no compelling reasons to interfere with the well considered judgment and decree of the Family Court and hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as meritless. The judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Cuddalore dated 26.02.2019 is thereby confirmed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 24-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dsn To The Family Court, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

P.T.ASHA J. and N.MALA J. dsn CMA No. 3033 of 2019 24-09-2026