Madras High Court
CMA(MD)/864/2021 of SUBRAMANI Vs TAMILSELVI on 17 September 2026
CMA(MD) No. 864 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.D.SUMATHI
CMA(MD) No. 864 of 2021
AND
C.M.P.(MD)No.19890 of 2025
CNR:{HCMD010734012021}
Subramani
S/o Arumugam,
D No.100, Mariamman Kovil St,
Srivilliputhur Village And Town,
Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
..Appellant /
Petitioner(s)
Vs
Tamilselvi
S/o Arumugam,
D No.2/102, Kasi Nagar, Suppalapuram Village, Aundipatti Taluk, Theni District.
..Respondent /
Respondent(s)
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 17.03.2020
made in HMOP No.4 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Srivilliputhur.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.A.Ajmalkhan
For Respondent(s):
Ms.J.Balameenakshi
CMA(MD) No. 864 of 2021
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan J.) The marriage between the appellant Subramani and the respondent Tamilselvi was solemnized on 05.09.2016 at Thiruparankundram as per the Hindu rites and customs. The parties belonged to Saliyar community. The appellant hails from Srivilliputhur. The respondent hails from Andipatti. The baby shower function was held on 10.03.2017. The respondent returned to her house of birth. The case of the appellant is that the family of the respondent did not inform him about the delivery of the child. The appellant subsequently was informed that the child was born dead and that it was buried in the backyard of the respondent’s house itself.
2. The appellant filed HMOP No.4 of 2018 on the file of Family Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.
3. The respondent filed counter statement denying the allegations. Based on the rival pleadings, the Court below framed the necessary issues. The appellant examined himself as PW1. Arumugam, father of the appellant was examined as PW2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. The respondent examined herself as RW1. Her father was examined as RW2 and her
CMA(MD) No. 864 of 2021
neighbour was examined as RW3. Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 were marked. After considering the evidence on record and hearing both the parties, the Court below vide order dated 17.03.2020 dismissed the OP. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal came to be filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this Court may take into account the subsequent conduct of the respondent. He pointed out that the respondent had lodged a criminal complaint against the appellant and the other members of his family. He also would add that the respondent trespassed into the appellant's house and created a ruckus. Videograph of the incident was also shown before us. In support of his proposition that the subsequent events will have to be taken note of, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2014 SC 2881 (Dr.(Mrs.) Malathi Ravi, M.D Vs. Dr. B.V . Ravi M.D).
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Court below is well reasoned and that it does not call for interference.
6. The point that arises for determination is whether the Court below was justified in dismissing the OP filed for divorce.
CMA(MD) No. 864 of 2021
7. The appellant had sought dissolution of his marriage between the respondent only on the ground of cruelty. The primary reason put forth by him in the petition is that the child was murdered and without anybody's knowledge, it was buried in the backyard. This is a too serious allegation. The case of the respondent is that the child was born dead. In support of her stand, the respondent had produced the medical records also. The appellant would claim that the respondent’s parents did not even inform him about the impending delivery.
8. We would fault the appellant for having not been in touch with the respondent. Admittedly, the respondent was with the appellant till the seventh month of her pregnancy. Only after the baby shower function was conducted, the respondent left for her house of birth. When the respondent left in the seventh month of pregnancy, the appellant was obliged to have kept in daily touch with her. We are not living in primitive times. Due to technology, one can be in direct touch on a regular basis.
9. The appellant would have obviously known what would be the probable date of delivery. By keeping himself away, he cannot take advantage of his own wrong. In any event, having made an atrocious
CMA(MD) No. 864 of 2021
allegation that the child was murdered and thereafter buried, the appellant cannot get away with it. Having made such an allegation, it was for him to prove the same. Obviously, the allegation was a false one. The Court below was justified in dismissing the OP. on that sole ground. We decline to interfere. This civil miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed. The dismissal of the civil miscellaneous appeal will not come in the way of the appellant from instituting a fresh OP. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (G.R.S.,J.) (M.D.S.,J.) 17-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No PMU To
1. The Family Judge, Family Court, Srivilliputhur.
2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
CMA(MD) No. 864 of 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. AND M.D.SUMATHI, J. PMU CMA(MD) No. 864 of 2021 17-09-2026