CMA/2684/2026 of Rameshkumar Vs Arunadevi on 7 September 2026

Judgment

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

The unsuccessful husband, whose petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty, was dismissed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore, by judgment and decree dated 23.10.2025, in HMOP.No.626/2022, has preferred the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner married the respondent on 01.12.2011, in accordance with the Hindu Customary rites. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was a driver and also a partner in Mahalakshmi Ceramics, Odanthurai. Out of the wedlock, the petitioner and the respondent have two children, a girl child born on 11.09.2013 and a boy child born on 29.01.2016.

The petitioner has referred to a series of instances/acts which according to him constituted cruelty. However, having gone through the entire pleadings, we are of the view that most of the alleged acts of cruelty

CMA No. 2684 of 2026 narrated by the petitioner relate to routine marital discord constituting an ordinary wear and tear of married life. To cut things short, we refer to only few allegations of cruelty. The petitioner alleged that due to the false allegation of impotency, by the respondent he was constrained to attempt suicide. The petitioner alleged that the respondent constantly nagged him to set up a separate matrimonial home. The petitioner further alleged that the respondent falsely accused him of having an illicit affair with one Prathiba, his friend’s elder sister. The petitioner contended that he had sent a legal notice on 05.03.2022 to the respondent, but she failed to reply to it. Hence, the petitioner filed the petition for divorce on the aforesaid grounds of cruelty.

The respondent filed a counter to the petition, generally denying all the allegations. The respondent admitted the marriage and the birth of the children. The respondent denied the petitioner’s contention that she nagged him to set up a separate matrimonial home and stated that it was the petitioner who shifted the residence near her parental home since his vehicle stand was at Goundenpalayam. The respondent contended that it was very much true that the petitioner had an extra-marital affair with Prathiba, the elder sister of the petitioner's friend. The respondent contended that when she along with her family members confronted Prathiba, she abused her in offensive language and asserted that she would continue her relationship with the petitioner. The respondent

CMA No. 2684 of 2026 contended that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home since the petitioner informed her that he would be marrying Prathiba. The respondent contended that she even lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Thudiyalur, against the petitioner and the said Prathiba. The respondent contended that the petitioner did not even take care of his children and that he had sent a legal notice with false allegations. The respondent expressed her willingness to join the petitioner and continue her matrimonial life, in the interest of the future of the children. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the divorce petition.

Before the Family Court, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and marked 15 documents. The respondent though examined herself as RW1, did not mark any documents in support of her case.

The Family Court, on an appreciation of the entire evidence on record and after framing necessary points for determination, held that the petitioner had failed to prove his case. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition for divorce, the petitioner is before this Court by preferring the above Appeal.

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

The only point that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty?

CMA No. 2684 of 2026

Even though the petitioner has alleged various acts of cruelty, we find that those allegations are trivial instances of differences in temperament, which in our view, cannot be elevated to acts amounting to cruelty. For eg., the petitioner alleged that the respondent pressurized him to purchase household articles, resulting in him incurring unnecessary expenses. It appears that the household articles which the respondent wanted for the house are TV, Sofa set, mobile phone etc. This Court considering the status of the petitioner, coupled with his admission of coming home at late hours after work, finds that the purchase of the said household articles can by no stretch of imagination be taken to be unwanted expenditure. The Family Court rightly found that since the petitioner used to go home at odd hours, it was normal to ask for TV tfor passing time. Similar allegations regarding purchase of a two-wheeler, car etc., were rightly dealt with by the Family Court, which found them to be voluntary purchases for the benefit of the family.

The more serious allegation of cruelty by the respondent is the allegation of an extra-marital affair by the petitioner with one Prathiba, the elder sister of the petitioner's friend. According to the petitioner, the allegation being baseless caused him great mental agony. The respondent, on the other hand contended that she sincerely believed that the petitioner had an illicit relationship with Prathiba. The respondent contended that she even lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Thudiyalur on

CMA No. 2684 of 2026 07.03.2022. Though the respondent has not filed a copy of the complaint lodged by her before AWPS, Thudiyalur, the petitioner in his cross- examination admitted that such a complaint was filed against him. The petitioner further admitted that in the enquiry with regard to the complaint, he had stated that he was not prepared to live with the respondent. Therefore, it is clear that it was not an empty or baseless allegation but had some substance in it. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the allegation of illicit relationship of the petitioner is not a hollow one and therefore, it cannot be brushed aside as a vacuous allegation.

The other serious allegation is the allegation of impotency levelled by the respondent against him. The petitioner contended that since he was a driver, he used to return home late and on one occasion, when he expressed his inability to indulge in physical relationship, the respondent questioned his potency. The petitioner contended that the allegation of impotency caused him severe mental agony and he even tried to commit suicide. The aforesaid allegation is a bald allegation and it is not supported by any evidence. Had the petitioner really attempted suicide, he should have examined some near relation to substantiate the allegation. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, we are not inclined to hold that the allegation stands proved. The petition is bereft of the particulars, like date, year etc. In the absence

CMA No. 2684 of 2026 of particulars, we are of the view that it was probably before the birth of the daughter. Since the daughter was born subsequently, on 11.09.2013, it is clear that the petitioner had, in any event, condoned the accusation.

We have gone through the pleadings, evidence on record and the judgment of the Family Court and we find that the Family Court has appreciated the case in proper perspective and has returned cogent findings. Hence, we are of the view that the appeal lacks merit and the judgment and decree of the Family Court calls for no interference.

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2025 made in HMOP.No.626 of 2022 by the learned Additional Family Judge, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District, is confirmed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 28-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP To

1. The Additional Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore.

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

CMA No. 2684 of 2026 P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 2684 of 2026 28-08-2026