CMA/437/2022 of S.SIVAKUMAR Vs K.SASIKALA on 22 September 2026

JUDGMENT

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

The unsuccessful husband, aggrieved by the order of restitution of conjugal rights passed on 23.03.2021, in HMOP.No.188/2018, has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

The parties will be referred to as per their array in the appeal.

The husband filed the petition for divorce in FCOP.No.186/2014, on the ground of cruelty and desertion, invoking Section 13[1][ia] and 13[1][ib] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the FCOP, the wife filed a cross claim, in HMOP.No.188/2019, for restitution of conjugal rights. Both HMOP and FCOP were tried together. However, FCOP.No.186/2014, filed by the husband was dismissed for default, on 10.02.2020, for his failure to pay the interim maintenance amount ordered in IA.No.232/2015, dated 08.08.2016. The Family Court, therefore proceeded only with HMOP.No.188/2019, filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights.

The facts in a nutshell, leading to the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are that, the appellant and the respondent got married on 06.06.2011, and out of the wedlock, a female child was born. The appellant alleged that the couple lived together only for a few days and that, thereafter, differences arose between them. The appellant alleged that the respondent, frequently used to threaten him that she would commit suicide by falling into a well. The appellant alleged that the respondent was taken to her paternal home on 25.01.2012, and later, he discovered that she was pregnant. The appellant denied the paternity of the child and therefore, a quarrel arose between the two families. The appellant further alleged that after a lapse of nine months, i.e., on 18.11.2013, the respondent gave a complaint to the Social Welfare Department, against the appellant and his family members. The appellant denied the paternity of the female child begotten by the respondent. He further alleged that on 05.04.2014, the respondent again lodged another complaint with the Kondalampatti Police Station, Salem, for reunion, and that in the Police Station, he, his mother and aunty, were assaulted by the respondent’s sister, neighbour and mother. The appellant alleged that his mother and aunty were treated in the Salem Government Medical College Hospital as Out-patients, and due to the above acts of the respondent, he was constrained to file the petition for divorce in FCOP.No.186/2014, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, invoking Section 13[1][i][a] and [i][b] of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The respondent filed a detailed counter denying all the allegations levelled against her. The respondent admitted the marriage and stated that during the marriage, the appellant was presented with 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs.1 lakh as dowry and silver and other household articles. The respondent contended that soon after the marriage, the appellant’s family harassed and tortured her for more dowry. The respondent further contended that only because her marriage was a love marriage and for the sake of her parents, she tolerated the ill-treatment of the appellant and his family members. The respondent alleged that the appellant never gave her the respect of a wife and that she was forced to do all the household chores even when she was pregnant, because of which, she had a miscarriage on 11.11.2011. The respondent further contended that she tolerated the harassment and ill-treatment by the appellant and his family members with the fond hope that he would change and she would have a happy marital life. The respondent contended that she conceived for the second time and gave birth to a female child, but the appellant failed and neglected to take care of her and the child. The respondent contended that she made several attempts for reunion through friends, relatives and well-wishers and that in spite of her best efforts, the appellant refused to join the respondent. The respondent therefore, filed the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

Before the Family Court, in HMOP.No.188/2019, the wife examined herself as PW1 and marked 9 documents. On the side of the husband, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

The Family Court, on an assessment of the evidence on record, allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights since it found that the husband’s denial of the paternity of the female child, was not proper and acceptable. Aggrieved by the order passed in HMOP.No.188/2019, the husband has filed the above appeal.

We have heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.

As already mentioned, the husband’s petition for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and desertion, was dismissed. The only point that arises in the present appeal is whether the wife is entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife, in her counter claim, alleged that at the time of her marriage, the husband was presented with 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1 lakh as dowry, apart from silver and other household articles, as demanded by the husband and his family members. The wife further contended that the husband and his family harassed her for more dowry and forced her to do all the household chores. The wife contended that she tolerated the harassment of the husband and his family, for the sake of her parents and also because her marriage was a love marriage. The wife further contended that her first pregnancy was aborted on 11.11.2011, due to the heavy work which she was forced to do in her matrimonial home. The wife contended that the husband was paid Rs.1,50,000/- from her father’s terminal benefits for securing a Government job, which he never got. The wife further contended that she conceived for the second time and was fondly hoping that her husband would take her and the child back to the matrimonial home. However, the husband failed to take her back. She further alleged that her husband was contemplating a second marriage with one of his close relatives. The wife, on the basis of the aforesaid objections, prayed that since it was the husband who had driven her out of the matrimonial home without any justification, she was entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The conduct of the husband can be discerned from his denial of the paternity of the female child, born out of the wedlock. The husband’s contention that since the wife conceived while she was in her paternal home, he could not be the father, cannot be accepted in the absence of any averment regarding his non-access to the wife during the said period. To deny the paternity, the husband should have pleaded non-access or the illegal relationship of the wife with any other person. Hence, we find that since the plea denying paternity is a bald assertion, unsupported by any particulars or cogent material warranting its acceptance, the same deserves to be rejected. Even the other allegations of cruelty against the wife like her complaints to the Social Welfare Department and the assault of his family members by her, are not corroborated by any evidence. In the absence of pleadings and evidence, in support of the plea of cruelty and denial of paternity we find that the allegations are baseless and made for the purpose of the case. We find that the Family Court has appreciated the matter in proper perspective and its finding that the denial of paternity of the child itself amounts to cruelty to the wife, cannot be faulted. We therefore, find no compelling reasons to interfere with the order of the Family Court in HMOP.No.188/2019.

Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The Judgement and Decree dated 23.03.2021, passed in HMOP.No. 188 of 2019 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Salem, is confirmed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP To

1. The Judge, Family Court, Salem.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Chennai.

P.T.ASHA, J. AND N.MALA, J. AP CMA No. 437 of 2022 22-09-2026