CMA/1355/2022 of SUSEELA Vs Kolanchinathan on 22 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The wife who is aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, Ariyalur, is the appellant herein. Parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Family Court, Ariyalur.

2. The facts required for disposing of this civil miscellaneous appeal are herein below set out :

(a) The petitioner-husband, seeking to dissolve his marriage with the respondent-wife, had filed HMOP.No.87/2018 on the file of Sub Court, Jayankondam, which was later transferred to the Family Court, Ariyalur, on account of territorial jurisdiction and re-numbered as FCOP.No.88/2020.

(b) It is the case of petitioner-husband that his marriage with the respondent- wife was solemnized on 24.03.1999 as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner and respondent led a happy life and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with two male children named Bharathidasan and Parthasarathi.

(c) As days rolled on, the respondent's behaviour changed and she started picking up quarrel with the petitioner unnecessarily and left the matrimonial home and went to her parent's house and stayed there for a long period. On one such occasion i.e., on 15.05.2013, the respondent picked up a quarrel with the petitioner and went to her parent's house. Thereafter, when the petitioner went to her parent's house to bring her back, he was assaulted and kicked by the respondent's father and was thrown out of the house, owing to which, he was hospitalised to attend to his wounds. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Udayarpalayam Police Station.

(d) While so, on 08.09.2019, the petitioner issued a legal notice calling upon the respondent to rejoin him. A panchayat was conducted, pursuant to which, they rejoined and resided at Edayar Village.

(e) The petitioner would submit that the respondent had taken away the earnings of the petitioner without his knowledge and when this was questioned by the petitioner, she consumed poison on 04.09.2019 and was hospitalised and recovered. The respondent's family members to take revenge on the petitioner, had kidnapped him and taken him to Udayarpalayam, where they assaulted him and caused fracture to his left hand. He therefore lodged a complaint. As a counter blast, the respondent's relatives lodged a false complaint before the Udayarapalayam Police Station and an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner. The petitioner had thereafter obtained a bail.

(f) The respondent with the help of her relatives, had grabbed the petitioner's property and never permitted him to enter the house.

Alleging that the petitioner could not withstand the cruelty any longer, had filed a petition for divorce.

3. The respondent-wife had filed a counter denying the allegations contained in the petition. She would submit that the petitioner was not a man of good character and he led a wayward life. Therefore, the petitioner's father had executed a Will in favour of his grandchildren on 23.09.2020. It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner was an alcoholic and would assault her under the influence of liquor. The respondent would submit that she is living in petitioner's house and maintaining her children. She would also submit that though the petitioner was earning good income out of his business, it is only out of her hard earned money, she maintains her children. The respondent was willing to rejoin the petitioner and therefore, she sought for the dismissal of the divorce petition.

4. The petitioner had examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P5. On the side of the respondent, she examined herself as R.W.1 and one Bharathidasan, her son, as R.W.2, and marked Ext.X1.

5. The learned Judge on carefully perusing the evidence on record and the pleadings, held that the petitioner had proved the incidents of cruelty and therefore, he is entitled to a decree for divorce. Challenging the same, the respondent-wife is before this Court.

6. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and none appeared on behalf of the respondent.

7. A perusal of the evidence, particularly the deposition of R.W.1 and R.W.2 would clearly show that not only had the petitioner and respondent got separated from each other for four years but R.W.2 would also admit that the respondent had filed a dowry complaint against the petitioner. It is rather strange that after 19 years of marriage, the respondent had filed a complaint of dowry harassment. In fact R.W.2 in his admission has stated that it is he, his brother and his mother who are living in the petitioner's house. However, during cross-examination to a specific query, he had admitted that he was not aware as to where his father stayed and how he was fending for himself for the past four years. In his cross-examination, R.W.2 has stated as follows :

"fle;j 4 tUlfhyj;jpy; vdJ mg;gh v';fpUe;jhh;. vg;go thH;e;jhh;. vg;go rhg;gpl;lhh; vg;go tUkhdk; te;jJ vd;W vdf;Fj; bjhpahJ/ Mdhy; tPl;ow;F tUthh;/"

This admission is contrary to his earlier deposition that his father was also living with them. It is seen from Ext.P5, wound certificate that the petitioner had been assaulted by the respondent's brother and he had been injured. The petitioner had been assaulted not once but twice, which is evident from Ext.P3, police complaint and Ext.P4, FIR in crime No.250/2018 before the Udayarpalayam Police Station. It is clear that after the above incidents, if the petitioner is made to rejoin with the respondent, he would be exposed to further harm. The respondent's statement that she is ready to rejoin, is nothing but a lip service. She has also admitted in her chief examination that she had lodged a complaint against her husband before the Udayarpalayam Police Station in the year 2018 alleging that the petitioner had demanded dowry and had also threatened to kill her. The conduct of the respondent clearly shows that she does not have a genuine inclination to rejoin her husband. If she had the intention, she would have not have filed a complaint for dowry harassment and neither would her siblings assaulted the petitioner Admittedly, the petitioner is now out of occupation of his own house and it is the respondent who is living there.

8. Therefore, the learned Judge has rightly analysed the evidence on record and granted the decree for divorce. We have no hesitation to concur with the order of the learned Family Court Judge. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DS To:

1. The Family Court Ariyalur.

2. The Section Officer High Court, Madras.

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. DS CMA No. 1355 of 2022 AND CMP NO. 9830 OF 2022 22-09-2026