CMA/2977/2021 of N.T.GOPIKRISHNAN Vs PARVATHAVARTHINI on 18 September 2026

JUDGMENT

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

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 31.10.2017 made in H.M.O.P. No.937 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Principal Family Court at Coimbatore.

When the matter was taken up for hearing, we wanted to strike out the appeal for non-payment of the arrears of maintenance. The appellant undertook to clear the entire arrears of maintenance and sought time to file an undertaking, to the said effect. The appellant filed the affidavit of undertaking on 18.09.2026, which is taken on file and recorded. Since the appellant has undertaken to clear the entire arrears of maintenance, we took the appeal for hearing. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the undertaking affidavit are extracted below:- “2. I state that the respondent herein filed O.S.No.97 of 2020 on the file of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Gobichettipalayam seeking for maintenance. The said court by judgment and decree dated 27.04.2026 has directed me to pay a sum of Rs.12,500 per month from January 2018 till December 2020 deducting Rs.3,500 being paid as per the order in M.C.19 of 2011 and thereafter from January 2021 directed me to pay a sum of Rs.15,000 per month with an annual increment of 10 percent from the date of the decree and that there will be a charge on the third item of suit property with respect to the payment of the said maintenance.

3. I state that as against the said decree dated 27.04.2026 I have filed an appeal in AS.SR No.149884 of 2026 on the file of this Hon’ble Court.

4. I state that an amount of Rs.12,53,000/- has become due and payable in terms of the said decree upto August 2026. I state that I undertake to deposit the said amount of Rs.12,53,000/- within a period of twelve weeks from today to the credit of the trial court. I state that the said payment is made without prejudice to the rights of the appellant in the first appeal and subject to any orders that may be passed in the said first appeal.

5. Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take this affidavit on record in the above CMA and pass appropriate orders as deemed fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice”

The appellant aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

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

The appellant and the respondent belong to a Kongu Vellalar Community. They entered into an arranged marriage on 25.03.1996, as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, a son by name Abijith was born on 21.06.1997. Whileso, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, the appellant filed H.M.O.P seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The acts of cruelty alleged by the appellant can be summarised as follows:- [1]The indifferent behaviour of the respondent towards the appellant and her neglect of matrimonial duties and obligations. [2]The obstinaty of the appellant, coupled with her abnormally aggressive and seriously irresponsible behaviour giving rise to an inference of a mental disorder. [3]The respondent’s conduct in physically assaulting the appellant and forcing him into conveying the family properties obtained by him in the family partition, leading to the execution of the Settlement Deed dated 29.11.2002 in the favour of their son. [4] The respondent’s conduct in leaving the matrimonial home in February, 2005 without just and reasonable cause and settling in her parental home. [5] Filing of false and frivolous complaints and cases against the appellant and his family members, in C.C.No.294/2005 for the offence under Section 498A IPC, before the Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, OS.No.164/2009, for setting aside the cancellation of the settlement Deed and filing of a private complaint in C.C.No.312/2005, causing humiliation and loss of face to them, before their neighbours and relatives. The appellant contended that the aforesaid acts of the respondent created genuine apprehension in his mind that it was no longer conducive for him to live with the respondent. The appellant hence, filed the petition for dissolution of marriage.

The respondent filed detailed counter denying all the allegations made against her. The respondent contended that she was harassed for dowry and therefore she was constrained to file criminal cases against the appellant and his family members. The respondent further contended that the appellant used to torture and assault her in a drunken mood and that he had illicit relationship with several ladies. The respondent contended that it was the appellant who drove her and her son out of the matrimonial home in January, 2005. The respondent further alleged that the appellant with the active assistance of his relatives contracted a second marriage with one Divya on 26.01.2005 at Lord Vinayaga temple, situated at foot hills of Maruthamalai. The respondent alleged that since the appellant committed bigamy, she was forced to file a complaint against the appellant and his second wife and other abettors in C.C.No.312/2005 before the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore. The respondent further alleged that the appellant had entered into several fraudulent transfers including the cancellation of the settlement deed dated 29.11.2002, with a view to depriving her and her child of their legitimate rights. The respondent contended that only to safeguard her son’s interest,, she was forced to file the suit in O.S.No.164/2009 before the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam to declare the cancellation Deed as null and void and for possession of the properties. The respondent contended that the appellant was leading a luxurious life with his second life, whereas she and her son were left in lurch. The respondent therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Before the Family Court, the appellant examined himself as P.W1 and marked 13 documents. The respondent examined herself as R.W1 and marked one document. The Family Court after framing necessary issues held that the appellant was not entitled to a decree for divorce on the ground of desertion, since the appellant had failed to plead the same. On mental cruelty, the Family Court after analysing the entire evidence found that the appellant had failed to prove his case and that on the contrary, it was the appellant who inflicted cruelty on the respondent. The Family Court therefore dismissed the petition for divorce. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Family Court, the appellant has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower Court failed to peruse and appreciate the entire materials on record in proper perspective and therefore committed an error. The learned counsel submitted that the lower Court failed to appreciate that the criminal complaint filed against the appellant and his family members in C.C.No.294/2005 for the offence under Section 498A IPC, resulting in acquittal, clearly showed that the respondent had filed false criminal complaint only to humiliate the appellant and his family members. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent had failed to establish the false allegation of illicit relationship of the appellant with several ladies. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegations of illicit relationships were defamatory and amounted to mental cruelty. The learned counsel submitted that repeated filing of false cases and unsuccessful appeals against the cases amounted to cruelty and therefore the appellant was entitled to a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the lower Court had appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and had rightly found that the appellant had failed to prove the allegations of mental cruelty against the respondent and that it was the respondent who was subjected to mental cruelty by the appellant. The learned counsel therefore submitted that there were no merits in the appeal and same deserved to be dismissed.

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

Though the parties have levelled several allegations against each other, we find from a perusal of the pleadings of the appellant, that the main acts of cruelty can be broadly categorised into two. First, relating to filing of false criminal complaints and the second, relating to pressurising the appellant into conveying his family properties in favour of their son.

The appellant, in support of his case, has filed 13 documents. Out of the said 13 documents, Exs.P6, P8, P9 and P10 are heavily relied to show that the criminal cases filed against the appellant and his family members were false and frivolous and filed only to humiliate and cause mental agony to the appellant and his family members.

The records reveal that the respondent had filed a criminal complaint against the appellant and his family members in CC.No.294/2005 for the

offences under Section 498A of IPC, for dowry harassment. The appellant was arrested and put in jail for 20 days. Thereafter, after a full-fledged trial, all the accused were acquitted. Even the revision petition filed by the respondent against the order in RC.No.133/2009, came to be dismissed on 19.08.2015. The respondent also preferred CC.No.312/2005 against the appellant and 16 others, on the ground of bigamy and the said case was dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.01.2017. The appellant referring to the dismissal of the aforesaid cases, under Exs.P6 to P10, contends that the filing of such false cases itself amounts to acts of cruelty.

The Family Court rejected the appellant’s contentions mainly on the grounds that the acquittal was not honourable and that the present case for divorce was filed after a delay of six years from the date of acquittal. We find that the reasoning of the Family Court is erroneous and untenable. In our view, once the criminal Court, on assessment and appreciation of the entire evidence on record found that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Family Court ought to have accepted the same, more so, when no independent evidence was filed to prove the allegations of dowry before it. The Family Court failed to note that it is not necessary that the acquittal should have been honourable. The very fact that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt was sufficient to hold that the case was falsely foisted. Moreover, even the revision petition filed by the respondent in RC.No.133/2009, before this Court was dismissed on

19.08.2015. The conduct of the respondent in filing revision after the dismissal of CC.No.294/2005, shows that she made all attempts to ensure that the appellant and his family members were put behind the bars. In our view, even the filing of Cc.No.312/2005 for bigamy, against the appellant and 16 others and not prosecuting the same, are acts of cruelty. In our view, since the respondent had filed false criminal cases against the appellant and his family members, it would indubitably amount to matrimonial cruelty, so as to entitle the appellant to claim divorce. It is not the case of the respondent that the Criminal Court findings were erroneous. The respondent has also not led any independent evidence to prove the allegation of dowry harassment and bigamy before the Family Court. While so, the Family Court erred in ignoring the Criminal Court’s decision.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the Family Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and we are therefore constrained to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Family Court. We find merit in the appeal. Since we have found in favour of the appellant on the first point, and since we are of the view that it is sufficient to allow the appeal, a detailed discussion on second point is not necessary.

Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the fair and decreetal order dated 31.10.2017 made in H.M.O.P. No.937 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Principal Family Judge at Coimbatore, is set aside. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent, solemnized on 25.03.1996, is dissolved. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 18-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dsn/AP To

1. The Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Coimbatore.

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

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. dsn/AP CMA No. 2977 of 2021 18-09-2026