CMA(MD)/882/2021 of S.CHOKALINGAM Vs M.PREMALATHA on 22 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(By G.R.Swaminathan, J.) The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 28.01.2007 at Trichy as per Hindu rites and customs. A male child was born on 14.04.2012. The relationship between the parties appears to have broken down soon thereafter. The appellant filed H.M.O.P.No.297 of 2017 before the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The respondent filed counter stating that she is very much willing to rejoin. Based on the rival pleadings, the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli framed the necessary issues. The appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. The respondent examined herself as R.W.1. The lawyer's notice issued by her was marked as Ex.R1. After hearing both the parities and perusing the evidence on record, the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli dismissed the HMOP vide order dated 04.02.2021. Assailing the same, this appeal came to be filed.

2. Considering the long period of separation between the parties and taking into account the fact that the appellant is employed in

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 12:26:05 pm )

C.M.A.(MD)No.882 of 2021 railways, we impleaded the employer so that some kind of a financial arrangement could be worked out. The parties appeared in person before us. We regret to note that the conduct of the appellant was not encouraging. To say the least, his tone was defiant. He made it clear that he would not hesitate to quit his job and frustrate any order that may be passed by this Court as regards maintenance of the respondent and the child.

3. The appellant having sought the relief of divorce was obliged to prove that the respondent was guilty of marital cruelty and desertion. The ground of desertion is not all made out. Even before us, the respondent asserted that she is eager to rejoin with the appellant. But the appellant made it clear that he will not take the respondent back. This being the attitude exhibited by the appellant even before us, we refuse to believe that the respondent was guilty of desertion.

4. As regards cruelty, the evidence on record is not at all sufficient to come to the conclusion. The Court below had carefully analysed the entire evidence on record and the reasons assigned by it for dismissing the HMOP are justified. There is no merit in this appeal.

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 12:26:05 pm )

C.M.A.(MD)No.882 of 2021

5. The respondent filed M.C.No.54 of 2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli. The said MC was partly allowed on 11.03.2019. Since during the relevant time, the respondent was employed, no maintenance was ordered in her favour. However, for the child, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be paid. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent is no longer gainfully employed. In view of this change in circumstance, the respondent is very much having the right to file a fresh maintenance case. The learned standing counsel for Railways informs the Court that the appellant's net pay is Rs.65,121/- and gross pay is Rs.78,332/-. As and when any maintenance petition is filed by the respondent, it should be disposed of by the Court below within a period of three months.

6. This civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs. (G.R.S. J.,) & (M.D.S. J.,) 22.09.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 12:26:05 pm )

C.M.A.(MD)No.882 of 2021 To: The Family Court, Tiruchirappalli. Copy to: The Section Officer, ER/VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 12:26:05 pm )

C.M.A.(MD)No.882 of 2021 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and M.D.SUMATHI

, J.

ias C.M.A.(MD)No.882 of 2021

22.09.2026

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 12:26:05 pm )