CMA/3034/2026 of Mohan Kumar Vs Preetha on 8 September 2026

Common Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The husband has filed these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Salem, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant-husband for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.614 of 2024 and allowing the application filed by the respondent-wife for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.799 of 2024.

2. Since the facts are common in both the appeals, the facts as set out in H.M.O.P.No.614 of 2024 filed by the appellant for divorce and the counter filed by the respondent therein are extracted herein below.

3. Case of the appellant:

(i) It is the contention of the appellant that he had married the respondent on 11.07.2016 at Salem as per the rites and customs prevalent in their community. Earlier on 10.05.2016, a betrothal function had been conducted. Even at that point in time, the parents of the respondent had misbehaved with the appellant’s parents and they had not even spoken to the appellant’s parents. After the marriage, the appellant and the respondent resided with the parents of the appellant. Within three days of the marriage, the respondent’s parents had come to the appellant’s house to take back the appellant and the respondent for Aadi Alaippu. He would submit that even on this day, the respondent had picked up a quarrel with his parents unreasonably. The grievance of the appellant appears to be that the respondent and her parents had never shown respect to his parents and even the relatives of the respondent behaved in the same fashion. When the appellant had telephoned the respondent on the very next day, the brother had attended the phone call and stated that she would not return to the house of the appellant. The attempts to arrive at a compromise made by the appellant to bring back the respondent did not yield the desired results. Meanwhile, the respondent had conceived and the appellant, along with his friend, had gone to his in-laws to inform them and to attempt a compromise between the parents. However, the respondent’s parents said that they were not willing to continue their relationship with the appellant’s parents and even without serving water, the appellant and his friend were shown the door. Thereafter, the appellant succeeded in bringing back the respondent and lived separately at Salem.

However, the attitude of the respondent did not change. The appellant had arranged for the Valikappu function, which the respondent rejected on the ground that his parents should not attend the function. Therefore, the function never took place.

(ii) As per the custom in the 9th month of pregnancy, the appellant had dropped the respondent at her parents’ place for her confinement. On 16.06.2017, the son Hemanth was born to them. Even three months after the birth of the child, the respondent was not willing to return to the matrimonial home. The respondent informed him that he could take her and the child to the matrimonial home in the 11th month, as otherwise the child could be taken only at the age of three. The appellant brought the respondent and his son back on 13.05.2018. Within three days, the cousin brother of the respondent came to the house of the appellant and invited only the respondent for a marriage in the family. On 19.05.2018, the appellant had dropped the respondent at her parents’ house. On 22.05.2018 when the appellant had gone to bring back the respondent, she refused to come back and stated that she would come only after the function following the marriage of the cousin. An exchange of words took place, during which the respondent, in a fit of anger, had stated that the child was not born to the appellant. Hence, the appellant stated that if she did not return to the matrimonial home, he would return back the household articles to the respondent. Since there was no response, the appellant proceeded to return the household articles on the very next day and while transferring the goods, a mob gathered and locked the appellant and prevented the vehicles from leaving the premises. Thereafter, on 02.06.2018, the appellant attempted to arrive at a compromise through an Advocate; however the respondent was not ready to live with the appellant. Therefore, he would submit that the respondent had deserted him and that he is entitled to a decree of divorce.

4. Counter of the respondent: The respondent-wife has filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It is her contention that the allegations of cruelty, misbehaviour etc are the reverse. She would submit that right from the date of the engagement, the appellant’s family had been misbehaving with the appellant’s parents and relatives and had been insulting them. The appellant is totally under the control of his father and he has also stated so to the respondent. The respondent would submit that when she had conceived and was due for the Valaikappu ceremony, the appellant informed her that his mother and sister would not attend the function. Therefore, the ceremony never took place. The allegation that the respondent had gone ahead with the ceremony without the appellant is totally false. She denied the further allegation that her parents were not ready to send her to the appellant’s home. On the contrary, the respondent had denied the allegation that she and her child were taken back to his house. She would submit that she is always ready and willing to live with the appellant and therefore, sought to dismiss the appeal.

5. The appellant had examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. The respondent had examined herself as R.W.1 and no documents were filed on her side. The learned Family Judge, Salem dismissed the petition, contending that the appellant had not proved his case and consequently dismissed the petition for divorce and allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

7. The appellant has come to Court challenging the dismissal of the petition for divorce on the ground of desertion and the decree granted for restitution of conjugal rights. The allegations that are made in the entire petition point to cruelty. However, the appellant has not filed the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty on the other hand he has sought divorce on the ground that the wife has withdrawn from the company of the petitioner without any reasons. In this regard, a perusal of paragraph XX of the petition for divorce would make interesting reading and the same is extracted herein below. “XX. Cause of action for the above case arose on 10.05.2016 when the Betrothal function was conducted on 11.07.2016 when the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized; on 13-7-2016 when the parents of the respondent started quarrel with the petitioner herein; on 17-12-2016 when the petitioner arranged for compromise which ends in vain; on 16-6-

2017 when the male child namely Hemanth was born to the petitioner and the respondent; on 13-5-2018 when the petitioner took back the respondent with child; on 19-5-2018 when the petitioner left the respondent in her parents house for attending marriage; on 22-5-2018 when the petitioner went to the house of the respondent where the respondent and their parents misbehaved with the petitioner; on 23-5-2018 when the petitioner took all the house hold articles and throw it in the house of the respondent; on 2-6-2018 when the compromise was arranged by an advocate which ends in vain; on 22-10- 2020 when the petitioner arranged a compromise at the Advocate house at Edanganasalai ends in vain; on all subsequent dates when the respondent deserted the petitioner; the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent took place at Salem, well within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.”

8. From a reading of the above, it can be seen that on 13.05.2018 the appellant had taken back the respondent and his child. On 19.05.2018, the respondent had left her matrimonial house to attend a marriage in her family. On 22.05.2018, that is, within 3 days, the appellant had gone to the respondent’s house where his in-laws were misbehaving with him. On 23.05.2018, the appellant had taken away all the household articles and thrown them in the house of the respondent. The compromise talks ended without any settlement. Two years thereafter, it is only in the year 2020 that a compromise is stated to have been held. A reading of the above paragraphs would clearly indicate that it is the appellant who has thrown the respondent out of his house by removing her household articles and sending it to the respondent’s house thereby preventing her from returning to her matrimonial home. Further, the appellant, who claims that one Arumugam had tried to mediate between the appellant and the appellant, has not chosen to examine the said Arumugam as a witness on his side. In fact, even according to the appellant on the day when he had gone to unload the articles of the respondent at her matrimonial home that is on 23.05.2018 at 03.00 pm the vehicle was surrounded by her relatives and they did not permit the unloading of the goods in the house of the parents of the respondent.

9. Therefore, all the other allegations with reference to cruelty need not be traversed as the petition is one on the ground of desertion and as stated supra, the appellant has not proved the desertion. On the contrary, it is the appellant who has left the respondent at her matrimonial home. Therefore, the learned Family Judge, Salem has rightly analysed the evidence on record and dismissed the petition filed by the appellant- husband for divorce and granted the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent-wife. We see no reason to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, these civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 08-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SRN To The Judge, Family Court, Salem

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. SRN CMA No. 3034 of 2026 AND CMA No. 3036 OF 2026 08-09-2026