CMA/11/2024 of R. RUCKMAN RAJ Vs K. DHANALAKSHMI on 18 September 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.)

The above twin appeals are filed by the husband challenging the common order passed by the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore dated 03.03.2023, dismissing his petition filed for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.1340 of 2016 and allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by his wife in H.M.O.P.No.604 of 2018. Parties would be referred to in the same ranking as per H.M.O.P.No.1340 of 2016 where the husband is the petitioner and the wife is the respondent.

2. The common order has been passed by the Family Court in the above HMOPs including M.C.No.81 of 2018 and I.A.No.62 of 2018 in H.M.O.P.No.1340 of 2016. Both M.C.81 of 2018 and I.A.No.62 of 2018 were filed by the respondent-wife. M.C.No.81 of 2018 was filed claiming maintenance for herself and for her two minor children at the sum of Rs.15,000/- each, in total Rs.45,000/- per month; and I.A.No.62 of 2018 was filed for return of her silver articles, jewellery and dresses. Though a common order was passed by the learned Family Judge, the challenge before this Court is only HMOP.No.604 of 2018 and HMOP.No.1340 of 2016 by way of present civil miscellaneous appeals in C.M.A.No.11 of 2024 and C.M.A.No.14 of 2024 respectively.

3. The facts are common in all the petitions and the therefore the facts as narrated in H.M.O.P.No.1340 of 2016 is briefly stated herein below : A) Petitioner's case :

a) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent had taken place on 01.11.2009 at Coimbatore as per Hindu rites and customs. The couple started their matrimonial life in the petitioner's house at Tiruppur. Out of the wedlock, a daughter Bhavatharini and a son Abivanth were born, who at the time of filing the HMOP was aged 4 years and 2 years respectively.

b) The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent-wife did not show any interest in household chores. She never took care of the children and the petitioner. She used to pick up unnecessary quarrels with the petitioner and disrespected him.

c) The respondent was in the habit of visiting her parent's home frequently and stayed there for over 10 days during her every visit.

d) It is his further case that in May 2014, the petitioner had left for her parent's house at Coimbatore and had not returned. The petitioner's daughter was admitted in a school at Tiruppur, however on account of the respondent's frequent stay at Coimbatore, her daughter was unable to attend the school regularly. The petitioner on several occasions had requested her to return to matrimonial home, but she refused. In fact, even his parents and relatives had gone to the house of the respondent and had requested her to rejoin with the petitioner, but they failed in their attempts.

e) It is also his case that the petitioner and his parents had attended the marriage of the respondent's uncle's daughter Subhashini, where they were humiliated by the respondent.

f) The petitioner had also taken steps to set up a separate residence, however, the respondent refused to come and live with him.

g) Subsequently, on 07.10.214, the petitioner's mother and his aunt had met the respondent and requested her to return to her matrimonial home, which she refused outright and threatened that she would prefer a dowry harassment case against them, if they continued to ask her to return to her matrimonial home.

h) Thereafter, the petitioner had sent a legal notice dated 16.10.2014 calling upon the respondent to come and live with him. On receipt, she had sent a reply notice dated 04.11.2014, which contained only false averments.

i) He would submit that his brother, his brother's wife, his uncle Thangavel and aunt Lalitha had met the respondent during the last week of November 2014, and brought her back to matrimonial home. Therafter, as per her wish, the petitioner and the respondent lived in a separate rental house at Pitchampalayam, Tiruppur.

j) While so, in the first week of March 2015, she went to her sister's brother-in-law's house warming function along with his son, leaving the daughter with the petitioner, and thereafter, she refused to return to her matrimonial house and deserted him. Hence, the petition for divorce, alleging grounds of cruelty at the hands of the respondent.

B) Counter of the respondent-wife : In the counter, the respondent-wife would allege that :

a) The petitioner / appellant is a document writer and would help his father in documentation work. He had an younger brother and after the marriage, they had been living in a joint family.

b) The respondent-wife and petitioner-husband initially led a happy life. Out of the wedlock, she delivered her daughter on 20.03.2011, and a boy baby on 10.08.2012. According to her, they have led a happy matrimonial life till February 2014. However, after her sister's marriage with a Bank Manager on 02.03.2014, the problem started in her marital life. Her mother-in-law was upset by the fact that the respondent were given old jewellery at the time of her marriage, whereas her sister was gifted with new jewellery for her marriage. Her mother-in-law had advised the petitioner-husband to marry another girl, however, her husband was very supportive of her and told her that he would set up a separate house for respondent. The petitioner's mother did not appreciate this and she created a ruckus in the family and had also threatened the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had requested the respondent to stay in her parent's house for a few days so that the problem would die down.

c) After sometime, the respondent returned to her matrimonial house and her in-laws demanded that the respondent should seek division of her parent's property and insisted that she can come and live in her matrimonial home only after obtaining her share. On the ill-advise of his mother, the petitioner had taken the respondent and her children and dropped them in her parent's house at Coimbatore .

d) She would submit that thereafter her husband's attitude had changed towards her and he avoided her company. He had also started demanding partition of her share in her parent's property. He insisted that she should listen to his parents and only then he would live with her. The attempts of the respondent and her relatives for contacting the petitioner, was in vain.

e) While these negotiations were going on, she received a legal notice on 16.0.2014 which was suitably replied by the respondent on 04.11.2014. Thereafter, the respondent was taken back to her matrimonial house by the petitioner/appellant. However, her happiness was short lived only for a month and again her mother-in-law started torturing the respondent.

f) While so, the petitioner had set up a separate rented house for the respondent and his children but, she was not permitted to take her jewellery, dresses and sridhana articles to her house, and all her articles were withheld by her in-laws in their house. The petitioner also avoided talking to the respondent and was not affectionate to her as he was during his earlier days of marriage. He also started abusing the respondent physically. On one occasion, the petitioner had hit the respondent hard on her neck and she had swooned and blood oozed from her mouth, the petitioner without attending her, had left the house, and it was the parents of the respondent who took her to the hospital.

g) The respondent would submit that it was the petitioner's mother who was the cause for all problems in her marital life and that she never even allowed the petitioner to talk to her. One such incident was that she and her relatives were invited for her brother-in-law's wife's house warming function on 08.06.2015, where both the petitioner and the respondent had met. When the respondent had attempted to talk to the petitioner, her mother-in-law never allowed her to talk to the petitioner, and therefore, the respondent had left that place with her son leaving her daughter to stay with her father, as she has to attend the school at her husband's place at Tiruppur.

h) The respondent would submit that she is ready and willing to live with the petitioner-husband. Hence, she sought dismissal of the divorce petition filed by her husband.

4. The averments in the petition in H.M.O.P.No.604 of 2018 filed for restitution of conjugal rights is nothing but repeat of the counter in H.M.O.P.No.1340 of 2016, and the counter in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights is the contents of the petition filed for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.1340 of 2016.

5. The petitioner/appellant had examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibits Ext.P1 to Ext.P10 were marked on his side. The respondent-wife had examined herself as R.W.1 and had marked Ext.R1 to Ext.15. One Krishnasamy was examined in chief as R.W.2 and Ext.16 was marked through him. However, he did not submit himself for cross-examination.

6. The Family Court, Coimbatore, on perusing the evidence held that the husband had not proved the allegations of cruelty and therefore, dismissed the petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.1340 of 2016 filed by the petitioner- husband and allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.604 of 2018 filed by the respondent-wife. Challenging the said orders, the husband-appellant is before this Court.

7. We have heard the counsel for the appellant who argued for admission and also perused the materials available on record.

8. The appellant/husband has come forward with a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The allegations of cruelty are that :

(1) The respondent-wife picks up unnecessary quarrels and never does house-hold chores

(2) The respondent disrespected him and his parents.

(3) The respondent frequently visits her parent's house at Coimbatore, and never cared about the petitioner as well as his children.

9. The appellant who would submit that attempts have been made by him for re-union and all of which were turned down by the respondent-wife, has not let in any evidence through any of his relatives who had gone over to the respondent-wife's house as witnesses on his side to prove his contention. With reference to the allegation that the respondent is not doing any house-hold chores, the petitioner had not deemed it fit to examine his mother or any member of the family. The allegation with regard to frequent visits to her parent's house by the respondent, is rather vague, as he has not specified the date or the month during which she had stayed away from her matrimonial home and her matrimonial obligations.

10. From the averments in the counter, it is clear that there was no problem between the husband and the wife and their marital relationship remained harmonious till 2014, after which, material differences arose between them. The allegations by the appellant that the respondent had given complaints against him and therefore, she had inflicted cruelty, cannot be countenanced for the reason that these complaints admittedly have been filed only after the appellant had initiated the proceedings for divorce. The appellant has not substantiated with reasons as to why he had not taken back his wife, particularly when they admittedly had a very good relationship initially.

11. Since the appellant has not proved the allegations of cruelty, the Family Court, Coimbatore has rightly rejected his case for divorce. The respondent has been forced to withdraw from the company of her husband due to the reasons stated supra. She has also clearly expressed her desire to rejoin the appellant. Therefore, the learned Judge has rightly allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. We see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Additional Principal Family Court Judge, Coimbatore, and accordingly the above civil miscellaneous appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 18-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DS

To:

1. The Additional Principal Family Court Coimabtore.

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

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. DS CMA Nos. 11 & 14 of 2024 AND CMP NO. 114 OF 2024 18-09-2026