CMA/3219/2026 of JOHN PETER Vs Catherine Lemoria on 21 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The respondent / husband in a petition for divorce filed by the wife is the appellant before this Court.

( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 05:06:17 pm )

CMA No. 3219 of 2026

2. The wife had filed IDOP.No.358 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court, Cuddalore, seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnised between the appellant and herself on 05.02.2016, as per Christian rites and customs on the grounds of cruelty. It is her case that after the marriage she had gone to live in the respondent’s house and initially they were leading a very happy marital life. Out of this wedlock, they had no children.

3. The respondent submitted that she has also been providing financial assistance to the family as she was employed. As time went by, the appellant and herself had started quarrelling and the appellant's suspicious behavior caused frequent quarrels at home. It is also her case that she had suffered both physical as well as mental harassment from the appellant. In the year 2016, the appellant on account of his inappropriate conduct and behaviour was arrested by the T-Nagar Police and imprisoned in Puzhal Jail.

4. The respondent submits that thereafter she returned to her home town in Cuddalore and was staying in a private women’s hostel. The respondent worked as a teacher at Krishnasamy Educational Institute,

( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 05:06:17 pm )

CMA No. 3219 of 2026

Cuddalore, without any assistance or support from any one. Considering the problems that she has faced and she was living separately, the respondent had come forward with the above petition for dissolving the marriage.

5. The appellant filed a counter affidavit inter alia denying the allegations contained in the petition and contending that the respondent was the daughter of the appellant’s maternal uncle and that they had loved each other before marriage. He would contend that the marriage was conducted at the expenses of his family and that the respondent was treated very well by the appellant. He has also borne her educational expenses apart from spending money on her.

6. It is the further case of the appellant that he is a fruit vendor and derives good income from the business with which he can maintain his family. Though he was an affectionate husband, the respondent did not reciprocate the same. During Covid 19 pandemic, the appellant had sustained financial loss in his business, added to which he had to treat the respondent by admitting her in hospital as she had cyst in ovary. For this hospitalisation, the appellant had to spend huge amount of money. The

( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 05:06:17 pm )

CMA No. 3219 of 2026

allegation that he came home drunk is absolutely false, as he is a teetotaller. The appellant would submit that it is the respondent who had been staying away from him without any valid reason. He would submit that he wanted to live with his wife and sought dismissal of the petition.

7. The respondent examined herself as PW1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3.

8. The appellant despite several adjournments and time being given did not come forward to cross examine PW1 or to submit evidence for himself. Therefore, on 04.03.2025 the respondent’s evidence was closed suo motu and the matter was posted for arguments. The appellant has neither submitted oral arguments nor written arguments. The arguments on the side of the appellant was closed on 21.06.2025.

9. The learned Judge on analysing the evidence submitted by the respondent held that she proved the case of cruelty and the appellant had not submitted himself to evidence only confirms the same. Consequently, the marriage between the appellant and respondent was dissolved by order dated 02.07.2025.

( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 05:06:17 pm )

CMA No. 3219 of 2026

10. Challenging the same, the appellant / husband is before this Court.

11. The matter had come up today for admission.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no evidence had been produced on the side of the respondent to prove her case. He has also stated that the appellant could not cross-examine PW1 or submit himself for examination because he was unwell with a viral fever and undergoing treatment.

13. Heard the learned counsel and perused the records.

14. The appellant who had filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations of the respondent has not cross examined her and the learned Judge has noted that the appellant was continuously absent and not ready for cross examination. It appears that the matter was adjourned on several occasions to enable the appellant to adduce evidence on his side. However, this opportunity was not availed by the appellant. The

( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 05:06:17 pm )

CMA No. 3219 of 2026

respondent had filed written arguments which was also not filed by the appellant.

15. The argument on the side of the appellant was closed as early as on 21.06.2025 and orders were passed on 02.07.2025. The appeal was filed with a delay of 8 days. There is no explanation as to why the husband had not taken any steps to set aside the ex parte order, if he was aggrieved by the same. The appellant has therefore not availed the opportunity to cross examine PW1 and submit himself for chief and cross examination. The respondent has proved her case. No grounds have been made out warranting this Court to interfere with the order passed in IDOP.No.358 of 2021, on the file of the Family Court, Cuddalore.

16. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KAN

( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 05:06:17 pm )

CMA No. 3219 of 2026

To The Family Court, Cuddalore.

( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 05:06:17 pm )

CMA No. 3219 of 2026

P.T.ASHA J. AND E.MANOHARAN J. KAN CMA No. 3219 of 2026 21-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 05:06:17 pm )