CMA/2321/2023 of RAMANATHAN Vs S.YAMUNA on 16 September 2026

JUDGEMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) Challenging the dismissal of his application seeking divorce on the ground that the petitioner was living in adultery with the second respondent, the appellant/petitioner is before this Court. Parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Family Court, Tiruvannamalai in H.M.O.P.No.30/2020.

2. Petitioner's case :

(a) The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking to dissolve the marriage held between him and the first respondent on 03.09.2008. Though the petition is titled as one on the ground of cruelty, however, the averments contained in the petition are all relating to adultery.

(b) It is the case of the petitioner that he has married the respondent as per Hindu Rites in the year 2008. Out of the wedlock, he had two children, a daughter named Sushmitha, born on 05.11.2009 and a son Sooriya, born on 23.07.2011. He is an agriculturist. He is the second son of his parents. His elder brother is living separately and the petitioner is taking care of his parents. His sisters were married and living separately.

(c) The petitioner would submit that they had started their matrimonial life in their ancestral house. The first respondent/wife was very adamant and was not having a cordial relationship with her in-laws. This conduct has caused great mental agony to the petitioner.

(d) The petitioner would contend that the first respondent had developed an illicit intimacy with the second respondent, who was a married man having two children. When enquired with the first respondent, he was shocked to learn that the rumors were true, as the same was admitted by her. The first respondent never repented for her mistake, instead she threatened to kill the petitioner with the help of second respondent. The elders in his family and the neighbours in his village had attempted to advise the first respondent to snap ties with the second respondent, but she was not ready to accept and annoyed by the same, she left her matrimonial house along with his son sometime in April 2015, with an intention of deserting him.

(e) The petitioner has sent a legal notice on 21.05.2015 to the first respondent citing out all the facts. The first respondent though received the notice, had failed to respond to the same. Considering the conduct of the first respondent, the petitioner has been left with no other alternative, except to file a petition for divorce. The legal notice which was sent to the second respondent though was responded with a reply but contained all false allegations.

3. First respondent's case :

i. The first respondent had denied the allegations contained in the petition. She would submit that her marriage with the petitioner was an arranged one and that her parents had given her as well the petitioner, the jewellery, money to purchase a two wheeler, house- hold articles etc., Her parents had also gifted jewellery at the time of the birth of first grandchild.

ii. The first respondent would state that initially she and the petitioner had led a happy married life and this was ruined when the petitioner had developed friendship with one Dharani. The said Dharani had over a period of time asserted his influence upon the petitioner. The said Dharani had attempted to misbehave with her, which she had spurned, and angered by this act, Dharani had poisoned the mind of the petitioner against the first respondent.

iii. While so, Dharani had participated in the Panchayat Union Election and his rival candidate was the second respondent, before whom he had lost. This added fuel to fire and in order to take revenge, he had triggered the petitioner to file the HMOP on the ground of adultery.

iv. She would deny that the allegations are absolutely false. She would also plead that despite her attempts to rejoin the petitioner, on account of the ill-advise of said Dharani, she was unable to return to her matrimonial home. Therefore, she seeks for the dismissal of the HMOP filed by the petitioner.

4. Before the Family Court, the petitioner had examined himself as P.W.1, and his friend Dharani as P.W.2 and marked exhibits Ext.P1 to Ext.P4. The first respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and marked exhibits Ext.R1 to Ext.R5. The learned Judge had dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had not proved the case of adultery.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge dated 10.11.2021 in H.M.O.P.No.30/2020, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. We have heard the counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed before us.

7. Though the petitioner has filed the petition for divorce with averments relating to adultery, however, the petition was styled as one filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is for cruelty. The petitioner's contention is that the first respondent is living in adultery with the second respondent. The petitioner and first respondent had their residence at Mutharasanpoondi Village in Tiruvannamalai, whereas the second respondent lived in Naathampoondi Village. The petitioner in his petition has stated that the news of the first respondent living in adultery with the second respondent was known throughout the village. However, not a single person belonging to the Mutharasanpatty Village has been examined on the side of the petitioner to prove the said contention. Instead he had only examined Dharani as P.W.2, who is not the resident of the Muthrasanpatty Village, where the petitioner and first respondent lived. Further, the first respondent in her counter had stated that the said Dharani had misbehaved with her and that she had instructed that he should not enter her house. Therefore, the said Dharani had axe to grind with the first respondent.

8. A perusal of P.W.2's evidence would clearly show how the entire allegations have been concocted. In response to the question as to whether P.W.2 (Dharani) was a regular visitor to the petitioner's house, he answered that before petitioner's marriage, he used to visit him regularly, and after his marriage with the first respondent, he had gone to their house on 2 to 3 times and only on one occasion, he had eaten in their house. Further , P.W.2 is unable to state the date, time or the month on which he had seen the first respondent in the company of the second respondent. P.W.2 had also deposed in his evidence that he has been a party to the sale executed by the petitioner in favour of petitioner's sister, pending the divorce petition. P.W.2 has also admitted that the sale has only taken place only to give a quietus to the litigation in the petitioner's family, which arose due to the borrowal of money from his sister's husband by the petitioner.

9. Therefore, the person who has been examined to speak about the adulterous conduct of the first respondent, has not been able to substantiate the same with any details. The petition is also bereft of the details regarding the date, month or year on which the P.W2 had alleged to have seen the first respondent riding pillion in the second respondent's motorcycle. Though the petitioner had contended that the adulterous behaviour of the first respondent was known to all in his village, he has not chosen to examine any other independent witness. That apart, the petitioner has sought to examine P.W.2, against whom the first respondent has already made allegations that he had behaved improperly with her. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be given credence to. Further, the allegations made by the petitioner against the first respondent appears to be bald allegations, unsubstantiated by any material evidence to prove his case of adultery.

10. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the petitioner has failed to prove the allegations of adultery and dismissed the petition seeking divorce.

We see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Family Court, Tiruvannamalai in H.M.O.P.No.30/2020 dated 10.11.2021. Accordingly, the above civil miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

(P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 16-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DS To:

1. The Family Court Tiruvannamalai.

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

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. DS CMA No. 2321 of 2023 16-09-2026