CMA/1763/2021 of BHUVANESWARI Vs VIGESHWAR on 10 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The respondent wife has filed the above civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the decree for divorce granted by the Family Court, Salem in FCOP.No.310 of 2016. The short facts relevant for disposing of the above appeal is herein below set out and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Family Court. The petitioner’s case:

2. It is the case of the petitioner husband that he got married to the respondent wife on 25.02.2010, after betrothal function on 25.10.2009. The expenses for the marriage as well as betrothal were shared by both family. The petitioner had offered 10 sovereigns of gold coin haram and three silk sarees to the respondent. The respondent’s parents had given half sovereign of gold ring to the petitioner. The respondent and the petitioner had started their marital life at the petitioner’s parental home as he was the only son of his parents.

3. The petitioner’s contention is that he was doing coolie work at a silver workshop and he was earning Rs.150/- per day. The petitioner works from 09.00 AM in the morning till 08.00 PM in the night with just hours of break in the afternoon. The petitioner would submit that his status was very well known to the respondent at the time of the betrothal function itself. Accepting the above, she had married him.

4. However, after the marriage the respondent refused to have any physical intimacy with the petitioner. Initially, she had stated that they should refrain from any kind of physical relationship till her brother got marriage. Thereafter, it became a routine. The petitioner would submit that with very great difficulty he had consummated his marriage. However, the respondent suffered from irregular menstrual cycle.

5. The petitioner would submit that despite his request she was not willing to submit herself for medical check up or for counselling. She was not interested in giving birth to a child or to continue the marital relationship. The petitioner’s contention is that the respondent failed to perform any of her marital obligation and would quarrel with the petitioner as well as his parents.

6. The petitioner would further submit that he was never given due respect either by the respondent or by her family members. During his brother in law’s betrothal function in the year 2012 he was treated with disdain. The petitioner bore these insults in order to ensure that his marital life would go smoothly. There are occasions the respondent would not talk to the petitioner for days together. She would also suddenly leave for her parental home without notice and the petitioner would be made to search for her. It is only thereafter he would learn that she is at her parent’s place.

7. The petitioner would submit that the respondent’s parents have also not taken any steps to correct her daughter. On one occasion i.e., on 23.03.2013, the respondent just disappeared and the petitioner, his parents and respondent’s parents and her brother were searching for her throughout Salem. At about 02.00 PM, she informed her brother that she arrived at Salem from Namakkal and requested him to pick her up. The petitioner had also gone with his brother-in-law to pick up the respondent.

8. Thereafter, a panchayat was convened in the respondent’s parental home. The parents of the respondent assured the petitioner and his parents that such an incident would not be repeated and requested the petitioner to continue with the marital life. They requested the petitioner to leave the respondent at their place and take her later. Thereafter, when the petitioner went to the respondent’s house, her parents had informed the petitioner that he should set up separate house. This was refused by the petitioner as he is the only son. Therefore, she did not return to the marital home.

9. The petitioner submits that the respondent was also in the habit of threatening to commit suicide. The petitioner tried counselling and about 12 sittings were held. However, all these efforts were in vain and the respondent refused to return to her marital home. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to issue legal notice on 20.08.2015, which was replied to by the respondent on 18.09.2015, contending several allegations. The allegations were primarily against the petitioner’s mother. The respondent insisted on separate residence to rejoin the petitioner. Therefore, left with no other alternative the petitioner had filed the above FCOP. The respondent’s case:

10. The respondent would deny the allegations contained in the petition. She would submit that the petitioner’s mother kept questioning the respondent as she had not conceived. She was taken for medical check up where the doctor advised the petitioner to undergo check-up. However, her mother in law made a hue and cry and did not allow the petitioner. However, the petitioner finally consented for medical check up and it was after the check-up it was informed that his sperm count is low. He was given medicines for increasing his sperm count and was advised not to take spicy foods, liquor etc., All of these advises were ignored by the petitioner.

11. She denied the allegation that she had refused to have physical intimacy with the petitioner. She would submit that she had been facing humiliation and insults at the hands of her mother-in-law. That apart, she had been put to great physical and mental stress. The respondent would deny the statement that she had asked for separate residence for them. The respondent further submits that she was thrown out of the matrimonial house by the husband. While throwing her out the gold, silver and other items belonging to the respondent was retained by the petitioner’s mother. The allegations that she was threatening to commit suicide is made up for the case.

12. She would submit that there is no serious dispute between the petitioner and herself and it was only her mother-in-law who was causing the problem. She would submit that due to previous acts of her mother-in- law she was reluctant to reside along with her out of fear for her life. She would submit that she is always ready and willing to rejoin the petitioner and sought dismissal of the petition.

13. The petitioner had examined himself as PW1 and one Jegadish as PW2. He had marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. On the side of the respondent she had examined herself as RW1 and one Sridhar as RW2. The Family Court on considering the evidence on record allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage.

14. It is challenging this order that the respondent is before this Court.

15. Heard the learned counsels on the either side and perused the records.

16. The petition for divorce is filed on the grounds of cruelty as well as desertion. The grounds are as follows:

(a) The respondent refused to have physical intimacy with the petitioner.

(b) Frequent visits to parental home without informing the petitioner.

(c) Insistence of separate residence when the petitioner is the only son of his aged parents.

(d) Refusal to rejoin despite several rounds of counselling.

17. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent have been living separately from 02.08.2013. The respondent who has stated that she wants to rejoin the petitioner has not taken any steps either openly or discreetly to rejoin him. On the contrary, in reply to the legal notice issued by the petitioner she has sent a reply stating that she wants to live with the petitioner subject to his making arrangement for separate residence.

18. The tenor of the reply notice and the statement made both in the counter as well as deposition does not inspire confidence as the respondent has put a precondition for rejoining her husband, namely, he should set up separate residence.

19. The petitioner has examined PW2 who is a counsellor in Shevapet Sowrashtra Madhar Sangam, Salem. The counselling report Ex.P.4 would show that the respondent has refused for reunion and insisted upon separate residence as precondition. Therefore, it is clear that at this juncture the respondent had no intention to reunite with the petitioner that too fully knowing that it is not possible for the petitioner to run two separate house holds.

20. The refusal to have physical relationship with her husband is also a form of cruelty and her various acts of threatening to commit suicide and leaving house without any information are all causes of mental cruelty upon the petitioner. The learned Family Judge has rightly analysed the evidence before him and come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the decree for divorce both on the grounds of cruelty as well as desertion. We see no reason to hold otherwise.

21. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 10-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KAN

To The Family Court Salem.

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. KAN CMA No. 1763 of 2021 and CMP NO. 9393 of 2021 10-09-2026