CMA/1794/2018 of P.RAJASEKARAN Vs G.RENUKADEVI on 22 September 2026

Common Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) C.M.A.No.1794 of 2018 is filed challenging the dismissal of O.P.No.739 of 2005, which was filed by the husband for divorce.

2. C.M.A.No.1795 of 2018 is filed challenging the decree for restitution of conjugal rights granted in O.P.No.657 of 2008, which was filed by the respondent-wife.

3. A common order has been passed in both O.Ps and therefore, a common judgment is being passed in both the appeals.

4. (i) It is the case of the appellant that the marriage between him and the respondent had taken place on 24.10.2001 at Vysarpadi, Chennai as per the Hindu rites and customs. Out of this wedlock, they were blessed with a son on 10.12.2002. The appellant would submit that the respondent is extremely indifferent, rude, impolite and cruel to him and his parents from the beginning and was in the habit of throwing vessels and using filthy words. He would submit that her indifference was such that she did not visit his father when he was hospitalised. It is also his case that the respondent did not mingle with his family members and would not participate in the family gatherings or functions. Her only intent was that his parents should leave the house and live elsewhere.

(ii) The appellant would submit that despite his request to his in-laws to advise the respondent, they had only added fuel to the fire by instigating the respondent to send away the appellant’s parents from the house.

(iii) The appellant would submit that when his father was hospitalised, the respondent was nine months pregnant and insisted on the Valaikappu function to be celebrated in a grand manner. The appellant was reluctant to do so as his father was seriously ill and was admitted in the hospital. This had angered the respondent and she insisted that the ceremony had to go on. Her parents had also supported her in this regard. The relatives of the appellant who had requested that the same be held in a simple manner were not heeded by the respondent’s parents. He was not intimated about the birth of the child and he, on coming to know about the birth of the son accidentally, had gone to the respondent’s house to see the son. He was ill-treated by the respondent’s parents and driven out of the house. Therefore, the appellant has come forward to file O.P.No.739 of 2005 to dissolve the marriage between him and the respondent conducted on 24.10.2001.

5. The respondent-wife had filed a counter denying the allegations contained in the petition. She would submit that it was the appellant who had thrown her out of the matrimonial home in the month of March 2005. The respondent would submit that while enquiring into the complaint dated 15.03.2005 given by her, the police officials had advised the appellant to live with the respondent. Though the appellant would submit that there is no possibility of reunion, the respondent would insist on rejoining the appellant. After filing of the O.P.No.739 of 2005, the respondent had filed O.P.No.657 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal rights. The averments contained therein are more or less the same as those stated in the counter and the counter of the appellant to this petition is on the same lines as his petition in OP No 739 of 2005.

6. The following points were framed by this Court for consideration.

(i) Whether the husband is entitled for divorce as prayed for in his petition?

(ii) Whether the wife is entitled for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights as prayed for in her petition.

7. The appellant had examined himself as P.W1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. On the side of the respondent, she had examined herself as R.W1 and marked Exs.R1 and R2. The learned Judge on considering the evidence and the pleadings came to the conclusion that the husband had miserably failed to prove the allegations of cruelty. The petition for divorce has been sought only on the ground of cruelty and the same has not been proved. The learned Judge had dismissed the petition for divorce and granted the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. It is challenging this order that the above appeals are filed.

8. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent had filed criminal proceedings against her in-laws and had also filed a police complaint, all of which clearly amount to acts of cruelty and the Family Court has overlooked the above. Therefore, he would contend that the decree passed in O.P.Nos.739 of 2005 and 657 of 2008 should be set aside.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the appellant is now seeking to put forward a new case which was never pleaded earlier and that apart, the allegations of cruelty as set out in the petition have not been proved by the appellant and therefore, the rejection is very much in order. The dismissal cannot be found fault with and the appeals should be dismissed.

10. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

11. The husband has come forward with the petition for divorce in O.P.No.739 of 2005. The allegations of cruelty can be broadly broken down into the following: a)The marriage with the husband was out of compulsion by the respondent’s parents.

b) The respondent had informed the husband that he was 15 years older than her.

c) That she would pick up quarrels and abuse him with vulgar words and withdraw to her parents without informing her husband.

d) She has ill-treated her husband in the presence of his relatives and insisted on the his parents leaving the house.

e) She had thrown vessels at her husband and had not visited the his father when he was ill.

12. A perusal of the petition would clearly show that the details regarding these episodes do not reflect the date, month and year on which these incidents had occurred. They are rather general statements made for the purpose of substantiating the allegations of cruelty. The appellant has not examined any other independent witness to prove his allegations that the respondent had behaved in an insulting manner with his relatives and that she was in the habit of using abusive language and throwing vessels. On the contrary, the learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the evidence of the respondent wherein it is brought out that the respondent had attended the death ceremony of the father-in-law. This admission has been obtained in the cross-examination of the appellant as PW1. He has also deposed to the fact that pursuant to the complaint given by the respondent, an enquiry has been conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thousand Lights Police Station with reference to the petitioner rejoining his wife. It has also been established that it is the petitioner who had behaved cruelly towards the respondent. After the birth of the son, the petitioner had not visited the respondent and his minor child. He has also admitted in cross- examination that he had not spent any money for the delivery of the child. He has also not taken any steps to visit them. The evidence would further show that the petitioner’s son suffers from seizures. However, the petitioner had refused to take care of the child. Therefore, the finding of the Court below that the petitioner had refused to take care of the child appears to be correct, since there is no denial by the husband.

The learned Family Judge has rightly observed that the petitioner has not proved his case of cruelty.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner attempts to contend that the filing of a criminal complaint would amount to cruelty. This contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the respondent has filed these complaints with the sole aim of somehow ensuring that the petitioner resumes cohabitation with her and despite the advice of his higher authorities to take the respondent and his son, the appellant had failed to do so. Therefore, we see no reason to disagree with the findings of the learned Family Judge, Chennai. Accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SRN To VI Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. SRN CMA No. 1794 of 2018 AND CMA NO. 1795 OF 2018 22-09-2026