CMA/3706/2021 of N.RAMESH Vs K.ABIRAMI on 11 September 2026

Judgment

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

The unsuccessful husband before the Family Court, has filed the above appeal against the fair and decreetal order of the Family Court dated 11.03.2021, made in HMOP.No.12/2020, dismissing the petition filed for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, solemnised on 18.05.2008, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the appeal.

The summary of facts leading to the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are that on 18.05.2008, the appellant and the respondent got married and out of the wedlock, a female child, namely, Rashika, was born on 15.03.2009. According to the appellant, the appellant befriended the respondent and thereafter, the respondent expressed her desire to marry him. The appellant alleged that since he refused to marry her, the respondent went to his village, threatened him and his parents with dire consequences, and compelled them to consent for the marriage. The appellant contended that fearing harassment of himself and his parents, the appellant consented to the marriage. The appellant further alleged that the respondent, before marriage, suppressed the fact that she belonged to a different community, and that she was six years older to him. The appellant alleged that since he was younger to the respondent, the

CMA No. 3706 of 2021

respondent used to suspect the appellant of illegal affairs. The appellant alleged that though he was affectionate towards the respondent, she used to abuse him in obscene language and also physically assaulted him. The appellant further alleged that due to the quarrelsome attitude of the respondent towards the house owners and neighbours, the appellant was constrained to vacate the matrimonial residence very often. The appellant alleged that he had changed three houses in Chennai, because of the irresponsible behaviour of the respondent. The appellant further alleged that the respondent used to complain about the appellant to his friends and colleagues, thus creating a bad impression about him and that, she neglected him and their daughter by not cooking for them, forcing him to eat out. The appellant alleged that due to the mental torture and cruelty meted out by the respondent, the appellant was constrained to issue lawyer’s notice on 09.04.2013, for which the respondent did not reply. The appellant, under the circumstances, filed the petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The respondent denied all the allegations and contentions raised by the appellant in his affidavit. The respondent contended that her marriage with the appellant was a love marriage and that, it was solemnised with the blessings of the elders of both families. The respondent contended that at the time of marriage, her parents gave the appellant, 30 sovereigns of gold, Rs.1 lakh in cash and all household articles. The respondent

CMA No. 3706 of 2021

alleged that it was the appellant who ill-treated her by referring to her caste. The respondent further alleged that she tolerated the appellant’s ill- treatment only for the sake of her child and she had also filed a petition in HMOP.No.143/2003, before the Sub Court, Villupuam, for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent alleged that the appellant wanted to dissolve the marriage because he was contemplating another marriage. The respondent contended that there was no merit in the petition and the same deserved to be dismissed.

Before the Family Court, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and his brother as PW2 and marked three documents. The Family Court eschewed the evidence of PW2 [brother of the appellant] since he did not subject himself to cross-examination. The respondent examined herself as RW1 and her sister as RW2 and marked two documents.

The Family Court, on proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, held that the appellant had failed to prove his case of mental cruelty and desertion and that the facts revealed that it was the respondent who was subjected to mental cruelty by the appellant. The Family Court therefore dismissed the petition as meritless. Aggrieved by the fair and decreetal order of the Family Court, the appellant has filed the above appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Family Court failed to note that the respondent suppressed the fact that she was older to

CMA No. 3706 of 2021

the appellant and that she belonged to a different community. The learned counsel further submitted that the Family Court committed grave error in holding that the appellant had failed to prove the allegations and that they were made only for the purpose of the petition. The learned counsel submitted that the fair and decreetal order of the Family Court deserved to be set aside as it suffers from total non-application of mind.

The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the fair and decreetal order of the Family Court. The learned counsel submitted that the Family Court had given cogent and logical reasons for its findings and therefore, the same did not call for any interference.

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

The case of the appellant before the Family Court was that the marriage was solemnised on threat and coercion of the respondent, that she suppressed the fact that she belonged to Vanniyar community and that she was six years older to the appellant. However, in his evidence, the appellant, in his cross-examination, deposed as follows:- ‘’vdf;Fk; vjph;kDjhuUf;Fk ; 18/05/2008y ; jpUkzk ; eilbgw;wJ/ me;j jpUkzj;jpd; gadhf vdf;Fk; vjph;kDjhuUf;Fk; bgz; FHe;ij gpwe;jJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ me;j bgz; FHe;ij 15/03/2009y; gpwe;jJ/ ,UtPl;L rk;kjj;jpd; goa[k;. v';fs; rk;kjj;jpd;goa[k ; jpUkzk ; ele;jJ/ jpUtz;zhkiy tp/vd;/rp/ jpUkz

CMA No. 3706 of 2021

kz;lgj;jpy; jpUkzk; ele;jJ ... jpUkzkhd mLj;j khjnk vd; kidtpia … ’

brd;idf;F miHj;J brd;W tpl;nld;/ brd;id jpUg;nghU:hpy ; trpj;J te;njhk;// jpUkzk; Koe;j gpwF gy Mz;Lfshf xw;Wikahfj;jhd; thH;e;njhk; vd;why; rhpjhd;///////’’

From the aforesaid evidence of the appellant himself, it is clear that the marriage was solemnised with the blessings of the elders of both families and that the appellant and the respondent shifted their evidence to Chennai, after the marriage and for several years, they led a happy married life. Therefore, the allegation of the appellant that the marriage was solemnised on threat and coercion by the respondent, is clearly a false statement. Further, the acts of cruelty alleged by the appellant are that the respondent used to abuse him in filthy language and used to physically assault him. The appellant further alleged that because of the quarrelsome behaviour of the respondent with the house owners and neighbours, he was compelled to shift three houses in Chennai. For the aforesaid alleged acts of cruelty, absolutely no evidence was led by the appellant. We find that the allegations are vague and bereft of particulars and as rightly pointed out by the Family Court, the allegations seem to have been made for the purpose of the petition and without any truth in them. If really the respondent’s behaviour with the house owners and neighbours was unruly, then they would definitely have lodged a

CMA No. 3706 of 2021

complaint against her. Also, when the appellant alleged that he had to change the houses, he could have examined any independent witness to prove his allegation. Based on the mere bald statements of the appellant not supported by any corroborative evidence, we are not inclined to accept the appellant’s allegation that because of the quarrelsome attitude of the respondent, he was put to mental torture by having to shift houses frequently. Even the allegation that the appellant was put to great mental torture because of the respondent’s conduct in calling his friends and colleagues and complaining to them about him, is not supported by any evidence. We have thoroughly gone through the order of the Family Court and we find that the Family Court has considered the matter in depth and has given justifiable reasons for rejecting the appellant’s allegations of cruelty. As discussed above, the appellant’s case regarding the very conduct of the marriage is found to be false. All the other averments in the petition of the appellant appear to be made for the purpose of the case. Therefore, we agree with the findings of the Family Court that the appellant has not made out a case for dissolution of marriage, on the ground of cruelty.

One more aspect which we would like to point out is that the appellant himself, in his cross-examination, admitted that he sent a lawyer’s notice to the respondent even while living under one roof with the respondent. The very fact that the appellant sent the notice while continuing the

CMA No. 3706 of 2021

matrimonial life, shows that the appellant had some oblique motive for divorcing the respondent. We find from the evidence on record that though the appellant has alleged that the respondent had deserted him and his daughter, the particulars like, date, time and year of desertion, are not mentioned. Therefore, we find that the appellant has not been able to prove that the respondent deserted him. In our view, the appellant has not made out a case for divorce on the ground of desertion also.

Hence, we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed and the fair and decreetal order dated 11.03.2021 of the Family Court, Tiruvannamalai, in OP.No.12/2020, is confirmed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 11-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP To

1. The Judge, Family Court, Tiruvannamalai.

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

CMA No. 3706 of 2021

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 3706 of 2021 AND CMP NO. 21746 OF 2021 11-09-2026