CMA/2027/2022 of S. Elamathi Vs T. Matheswaran on 7 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The respondent/wife has filed the above Appeal challenging the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Salem, in F.C.O.P.No.261 of 2015, filed by her husband/petitioner.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to in the same ranking as before the Family Court.

3. The petitioner would submit that he is a Veterinary Doctor and the respondent is a Government School Teacher. Their marriage was solemnized on 06.07.2006 at Sengunthar Thirumana Mandapam, Attaiyampatti, Salem Taluk. At the time of the marriage, the petitioner’s parents had given 25 sovereigns of gold jewellery along with household articles, whereas the respondent’s parents had given 15 sovereigns of gold jewellery.

4. The petitioner would submit that after marriage, both of them started living in his house. He would submit that the respondent had never behaved or conducted herself as a dutiful Hindu wife. She refrained from doing household chores and, as time went by, started becoming hysterical unnecessarily.

5. The petitioner would submit that the respondent, who was earning as a teacher, started torturing the petitioner for money within 25 days of the marriage. The petitioner had given all his earnings to the respondent, who spent the same at her will.

6. The petitioner would submit that the respondent was in the habit of taking medication. Within a few weeks of her marriage, she had refused to allow her in-laws to visit the matrimonial home and would direct the petitioner to bring food from the hotel. When this was questioned, she would become hysterical. Likewise, the respondent was not willing to have any kind of intimacy with the petitioner. From 2010 till 2013, when she had left the matrimonial home, there was no physical contact between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent was also in the habit of creating a scene on the streets, which caused a great deal of mental agony to the petitioner. Further, she would leave for her parental home without informing the petitioner and would stay there for weeks. Later, the petitioner came to know that, in 2008, she had been taking treatment for a mental disorder at Nalavenda Hospital, Coimbatore.

7. The petitioner would submit that the respondent’s parents were not willing to give the details of the treatment that she was undergoing. Every time after returning from the hospital and while going to school, she looked normal. Thereafter, in May 2013, the respondent had left the matrimonial home taking her gold jewels. All these acts caused immense mental agony to the petitioner. Therefore, he has come forward with the petition in question.

8. The respondent had filed a counter, inter alia, denying the contents of the petition filed by the petitioner. She would state that the allegations contained in the petition are false and not maintainable. All allegations relating to cruelty caused to the petitioner, unwillingness to discharge conjugal obligations and desertion were denied.

9. The respondent would submit that, at the instigation of his parents, the petitioner had neglected her and was only interested in getting her salary. The respondent would submit that her entire salary was given to the petitioner and that she had to ask him even for meeting her personal expenses. She would submit that she was forced to do the entire household work after returning from school. The allegation that the respondent had suffered from hysteria was totally denied. The respondent had clearly expressed her willingness to live with the petitioner and sought for dismissal of the petition.

10. The learned Family Judge, Salem, after considering the pleadings and the evidence, allowed the petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Challenging the same, the respondent/wife is before this Court.

11. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

12. The petition for divorce is on the ground of cruelty. The cruelty alleged are as follows:-

(i) The respondent was hysterical and had embarrassed the petitioner and his family by shouting in the streets.

(ii) The respondent would insist upon the petitioner bringing food from hotels.

(iii) The parties have not had any kind of physical relationship.

(iv) The respondent, on her own accord, had left the matrimonial home along with 25 sovereigns of gold jewels without any reason.

13. The defence put forth by the respondent is that she had suffered at the hands of the petitioner and his parents. She was made to hand over her entire salary and was made to work as a servant. She would submit that she had suffered mental agony on account of the conduct of the petitioner.

14. The marriage is admitted and the date of separation is also admitted. To prove his contention that the respondent was behaving like a hysterical patient, no document has been filed on the side of the petitioner.

15. The records would show that the respondent, in her deposition as R.W.1, has reiterated that she is always ready and willing to live with the petitioner. However, she has not taken any steps whatsoever to rejoin her husband and has not filed any petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

16. Further, the respondent has also not given any reason as to why she had left the matrimonial home in May 2013.

17. The petitioner has let in evidence to show that the respondent, without any justifiable cause, had been denying the petitioner his conjugal rights, which amounts to an act of cruelty. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the findings of the Family Court in dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on the ground of cruelty.

18. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 07-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SHR To The Family Court, Salem,

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. SHR CMA No. 2027 of 2022 AND CMP NO. 15525 OF 2022 07-09-2026