CMA(MD)/1069/2023 of Vinoth Vs Lakshmipriya on 23 September 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan J.) Heard both sides.

2. Thiru.Vinoth got married to Lakshmipriya on 27.08.2017 as per Hindu rites and customs at Ramanathapuram. A girl child was born through the wedlock on 14.07.2018. The relationship came under strain. According to the appellant, the respondent left the matrimonial home on 15.01.2019. According to the respondent, she was driven out of the matrimonial home on 11.12.2020. Vinoth filed H.M.O.P.No.51 of 2021 for dissolving his marriage with the respondent. The wife herein filed H.M.O.P.No.177 of 2021 for restitution of conjugal rights. Both were transferred to the court of Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram and re-numbered as O.P.No.22 of 2023 and O.P.No.23 of 2023. The husband sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. He also questioned the mental health of the respondent. The wife resisted the husband's prayer for divorce. Based on the rival pleadings, the court below framed the necessary issues. The husband examined himself as P.W.1. One Nagalingam / relative was examined as P.W.2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. Wife examined herself as R.W.1. The Gynaecologist was examined as R.W.2. Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 were marked. After hearing both sides and perusing the evidence on record, the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram vide order dated 31.07.2023 dismissed O.P.22 of 2023 and allowed O.P.No.23 of 2023. Aggrieved by the same, the husband has filed C.M.A.(MD)No.1069 of 2023 and C.M.A.(MD)No.1082 of 2023.

3. According to the respondent / wife, the daughter was retained and she was driven out of the matrimonial home. Hence, she filed G.W.O.P.No.90 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court, Ramanathapuram and it was transferred to the PDJ, Ramanathapuram and re-numbered as G.W.O.P.No.24 of 2023. She sought guardianship as well as custody. The husband opposed the prayer. After hearing both the parties, the court below vide order dated 31.07.2023 allowed OP and directed the father to hand over the child to the mother. Visitation rights were granted to the father. Aggrieved by the same, C.M.A.(MD)No.744 of 2023 came to be filed.

4. The wife filed M.C.No.32 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court, Ramanathapuram and it was transferred to the PDJ, Ramanathapuram and re-numbered as M.C.No.1 of 2023. She sought monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/-. The said MC was partly allowed vide order dated 31.07.2023 and the monthly maintenance payable by husband was fixed at Rs.7,000/-. Questioning the same, the husband filed Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1200 of 2023. Since all the four cases are inter linked, they have been clubbed together and taken up for disposal.

5. Since we felt that cause of action that led to separation of the parties was not all that strong, we tried to mediate and reconcile the differences. Inspite of our earnest efforts, there was no meeting point. Since the child happened to be a girl child, we arranged a meeting between the mother and the child. We could see that the child was not at all interested in relating to the mother. It is stated that out of anger, the respondent suddenly left the matrimonial home leaving the child behind and the child has been with the father ever since. According to the husband, the wife left the matrimonial home on 15.01.2019. According to wife, she left the matrimonial home in December 2020. If the child had been retained, then, the mother would have definitely lodged a police complaint. She did not take any immediate steps. Even according to the wife, she lodged a complaint before the local police only in February 2021. The child was born in 2018.

6. We are now in September 2026. We could note the intense bonding between the child and the father. On the other hand, there is so much of antagonism exhibited by the child towards the mother. It is well settled that the interests of the child are paramount. There is no hard and fast rule that a girl child should be in the custody of the mother. It all depends on the facts of each case.

7. The learned senior counsel, on instructions, from the appellant withdraws the allegations made against the respondent as regards her mental health. We also endorse the finding of the court below that the respondent cannot be held guilty of desertion.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2023

SCC Online SC 497 (Shri Rakesh Raman Vs. Kavitha) had held as follows:- “20. ...

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair.

21. ... We have no doubt that this relationship must end as its continuation is causing cruelty on both the sides. The long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the 1955 Act. We therefore hold that in a given case, such as the one at hand, where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation (as in the present case for the last 25 years), with multiple Court cases between the parties; then continuation of such a ‘marriage’ would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other.”

9. Thiru.Vinoth is present in person before us. He is working as OA in Registration Department. His brother is working as Sub Inspector of Police. Therefore, his younger brother can very well take full care of the father. Thiru.Vinoth through his counsel undertakes before this Court that a sum of 1/3rd of his net monthly pay can go directly to the bank account of the respondent. As and when he retires, 1/3rd of the terminal benefits can go to the respondent. He would add one caveat. According to him, this arrangement can continue till remarriage of the respondent if at all.

10. We find this stipulation to be quite reasonable. We are more than satisfied that the marital relationship between both the parties has irretrievably broken down and it is beyond repair. In this view of the matter, the order dated 31.07.2023 is set aside. C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1082 & 1069 of 2023 are allowed.

11. The father categorically states that the mother can very well visit the child at any time of course subject to the child's academic schedule. The father assures this Court that he will suitably counsel the child so that the relationship between the child and the mother are restored. C.M.A.(MD)No.744 of 2023 is also disposed of on these terms.

12. Since the revision petitioner himself on his own enhanced the monthly maintenance and also linked it to the salary drawn by him, no further order is required. The respondent / wife is entitled to withdraw the maintenance arrears deposited by the revision petitioner to the credit of the court below. The learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner states that the revision petitioner's consent can be recorded straight away so that the monthly arrears can be withdrawn without notice. Thiru.Vinoth fairly admits that he has the jewellery which was given to him already. Thiru.Vinoth undertakes to return the same this week itself. Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1200 of 2023 is closed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (G.R.S.,J.) (M.D.S.,J.) 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rmi To The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. AND M.D.SUMATHI, J. rmi CMA(MD) Nos. 1069, 1082 & 744 of 2023 23-09-2026