CMA/2451/2019 of M.KUMAR Vs J.SUDHA on 7 September 2026

Judgment

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

The husband, aggrieved by the grant of divorce in a petition filed by the wife under Section 13[1] [i-a] [i-b] of the Hindu Marriage Act, is before this Court.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Family Court.

The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal are as follows: The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 02.02.2015 as per Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner and the respondent are said to have lead a happy marital life only for seven months and thereafter, the respondent became addicted to alcohol and started ill-treating the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was of doubting character and used to severely beat her. She also alleged that he spent his entire earnings for his drinking habit and he used to behave like a mentally ill person. The petitioner further contended that she tolerated his tantrums / ill-treatments because she wanted to keep the marriage alive. Despite the petitioner’s best efforts to reform him, the respondent refused to lead a normal life and therefore, the

CMA No. 2451 of 2019

petitioner left for her parental home and started living there. The petitioner further alleged that on 08.10.2017, a panchayat was convened in which the respondent was advised to lead a normal marital life. However, the respondent refused to change. The petitioner, under the circumstances, was of the view that she would not be able to continue to live with the respondent and hence, she filed the divorce petition.

The respondent admitted the marriage and also that they intially led a blissful marital life in his village at Molappanahalli. According to the respondent, the petitioner, in March 2018, obtained a Government job in the Government Arts College, Dharmapuri, and as, at that time she was pregnant, they shifted their residence to her paternal home. The respondent contended that the petitioner’s mother lived separately in Bangalore and that, they lived in the petitioner’s paternal home along with her father. The respondent alleged that till the baby shower function in November 2015, the family life was moving smoothly and that trouble started after the birth of the female child on 03.01.2016, when he petitioner’s mother, stating that she was not able to take care of the child in Dharmapuri, shifted the petitioner to Heppakodi in Karnataka. The respondent alleged that even after the birth of the child, the petitioner was staying in her paternal home and only thereafter, she shifted to Bangalore and that he used to visit her and the child in Bangalore during holidays. The respondent further alleged that despite his sincere efforts to

CMA No. 2451 of 2019

bring back the petitioner and the child to the matrimonial home, she refused and continued to live with her mother in Bangalore. The respondent contended that he was willing to live with the petitioner and his child and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the divorce petition.

Before the Family Court, the petitioner examined herself as PW1 besides examining her father as PW2 and one Subramani as PW3. She marked three documents. The respondent examined himself as RW1 and marked four documents.

The Family Court, on an assessment of the evidence on record, found that the petitioner was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, since the unsubstantiated allegation of adultery made, in the course of evidence, amounted to cruelty. However, the Family Court declined to grant divorce on the ground of desertion. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Family Court, the respondent has filed the above appeal.

We have heard the learned counsels on either side and also perused the materials placed on record.

The marriage of the parties is not disputed and also the birth of the female child. The petitioner had sought for divorce on the allegations that the respondent was addicted to alcohol, that he did not provide the basic necessities for running the family and that, he spent his entire income on his vices. The petitioner also alleged that the respondent unreasonably doubted her character and chastity and that, in drunken mood, he used to

CMA No. 2451 of 2019

beat her often, causing mental stress to her. The petitioner contended that she tolerated the aforesaid conduct of the respondent only for the sake of the marital life. However, in course of time, she found that the respondent would not change and that it would not be possible to continue her marital life with the respondent and so, she filed the divorce petition.

The respondent in his counter though did not specifically allege adultery against the petitioner, but, in the course of the trial, elaborately cross- examined the petitioner on her relationship with one Venkataraman of KRP Dam Road, Kauveripattinam. The respondent in his proof affidavit, alleged that the petitioner had developed illicit relationship with the said Venkataraman and at his instance, she filed the divorce petition. In order to prove his allegation of illicit relationship of the petitioner with the said Venkataraman, the respondent examined himself, but failed to lead any corroborative evidence in support of his allegation. The petitioner examined her father as PW2 who deposed that the said Venkataraman was his wife’s colleague in her work place. PW2 denied that the petitioner was in regular contact with the said Venkataraman and that, she used to speak to him over the phone three or four times a day. PW2 categorically stated that it was his wife who used to speak to Venkataraman and that the said Venkataraman never spoke to his daughter.

CMA No. 2451 of 2019

It is seen that except the self-serving evidence of the respondent, there is no independent evidence to prove his allegation of infidelity against the petitioner. The petitioner has examined her father, in support of her contention that the said Venkataraman was her family friend and she had no other relationship with him. The vacuous allegation, in the absence of any corroborative evidence itself proves the wife’s allegation that her husband was a distrustful person of doubting character. In our view, a marital relationship is founded essentially upon mutual trust, confidence, respect and understanding between the spouses. Where one spouse is constantly called upon to dispel suspicion or establish her bona fides, the marital bond is unlikely to remain harmonious for long. With gradual erosion of trust the emotional bond becomes fragile and when the capacity for tolerance gets exhausted, the bond is snapped. In the factual scenario of the case, we find that the Family Court is right in its view that the unsuccessful plea of adultery in the course of evidence, amounts to cruelty. In our view, the serious, reckless and unsubstantiated allegation of unchastity, not only lowers the reputation of the petitioner, but also causes mental pain on the petitioner. In our view, the false plea of adultery made against the petitioner in the course of the trial itself constitutes mental cruelty and serves as an independent ground for granting divorce. Therefore, we are completely in agreement with the

CMA No. 2451 of 2019

finding of the Family Court on this aspect. Under the circumstances, we find absolutely no compelling reasons to interfere with the said finding.

The Family Court, in our view, has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for grant of divorce on the ground of desertion since separation for the statutory period of two years was not established.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed and the order and the decreetal order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Dharmapuri, dated 05.04.2019, made in HMOP.No.205/2017, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 07-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP To

1. The Judge, Family Court, Dharmapuri.

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

CMA No. 2451 of 2019

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 2451 of 2019 07-09-2026