CMA/2959/2019 of R.CHANDRASEKARAN Vs R.THENMOZHI SELVI @ DEVI on 7 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) Challenging the dismissal of his petition seeking divorce on the ground of desertion the petitioner husband in HMOP.No.802 of 2010, on the file of the Additional Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore is the appellant before this Court.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the above Appeal are set out hereinbelow and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Family Court.

3. The petitioner would submit that the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnized on 02.11.1998 at Community Hall, Valluvar Street, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore, as per Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner would submit that he and the respondent had lived together as husband and wife for about seven months at Vellalore and, out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with a son, who was born in July 1999.

4. The petitioner would submit that the respondent was in the habit of frequently visiting her parents’ house at Pappanaickenpalayam, where she used to stay for months together and, when the petitioner requested her to return to the matrimonial home along with their son, she had turned a deaf ear to such request. The sincere efforts taken by the petitioner to bring back the respondent and their son failed on account of the adamant attitude of the respondent.

5. The petitioner would submit that in March 2001, the respondent had preferred a police complaint on totally false allegations against the petitioner and his aged mother before the All Women’s Police Station, Pollachi. After enquiry, the police officials had advised the respondent to live with the petitioner. However, she did not pay heed to the said advice due to her adamant attitude. The jewels and other belongings of the respondent, including her dresses, were returned to her at the instance of the police. Thereafter, the respondent had, without any valid reason, deserted the petitioner.

6. The petitioner would submit that he is the only son of his aged parents. Since the respondent was not taking any steps to return to the matrimonial home, the petitioner had issued a legal notice dated 09.04.2001 calling upon the respondent to come and live in the matrimonial home. Since the respondent did not respond to the said request, the petitioner had initiated proceedings for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.340 of 2001 before the Family Court, Coimbatore. The same was dismissed on 06.10.2003.

7. Thereafter, in the month of January 2004, at the instance of mediators, the petitioner and the respondent had reunited and were living at Door No.17-3, Dr. Narayanasamy Layout, Ward No.20, Pappanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore, closer to the respondent’s parents’ house. After one and a half years, once again, the respondent left the petitioner and returned to her parents’ house along with her child and thereafter, she had not returned. As the efforts taken by the petitioner for rejoining had not yielded the desired result, he had once again issued a legal notice dated 05.07.2010 calling upon the respondent to return to the matrimonial home. Though she had received the same, she did not rejoin the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition for divorce on the ground of desertion has been filed.

8. The respondent would submit that the petitioner was only after her money to enable him to live a life as desired by him. The petitioner had never provided any essential expenses or maintenance to the respondent or their son. On one occasion, when the petitioner’s son was suffering from an acute urinary tract infection and had to undergo surgery, the petitioner was informed about the same and was asked to contribute towards the medical expenses. However, the petitioner refused even to see his ailing son.

9. The respondent would submit that, right from the beginning of the marriage, the petitioner had physically and mentally abused her in an inhuman and uncivilized manner.

10. The respondent would submit that the petitioner, in the month of December 2001, had demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- to meet his debts, which was given by the respondent’s brother. Once again, within two months, he demanded money from the respondent. On 11.03.2001, the petitioner and his parents had beaten the respondent and thrown her out of the house. Since the cruelty was getting out of hand, the respondent had to take shelter in her neighbour’s house and thereafter filed a complaint before the All Women’s Police Station, Pollachi. During the enquiry held by the police on 22.03.2001, the petitioner had given an undertaking before the police that he would take full responsibility for the respondent and his son and lead a normal life. However, within a month, the petitioner had filed H.M.O.P.No.340 of 2001 before the Family Court. The petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance by order dated 28.08.2002. The petitioner thereafter challenged the said order by filing C.R.P.No.234 of 2002, which was ultimately dismissed on 18.07.2003. Thereafter, in order to avoid payment of maintenance, the petitioner had withdrawn H.M.O.P.No.340 of 2001.

11. The respondent would submit that she was deceived into believing that the petitioner would lead a normal life and, therefore, she had deferred the maintenance proceedings.

12. The respondent would further submit that, despite the efforts of the mediators, the petitioner had failed to change his attitude and continued to harass the respondent and was in the habit of demanding money from her. Therefore, the respondent was left with no other option but to leave the matrimonial home and live at her parents’ house.

13. The respondent would submit that the petitioner is sufficiently well- to-do and is carrying on garment business as well as money-lending business. That apart, he owns immovable properties, whereas the respondent and her son are practically living hand to mouth and are fully dependent on the respondent’s parents. Therefore, the respondent sought for dismissal of the petition, which had been filed on the very same allegations as set out in the earlier H.M.O.P.No.340 of 2001, which had ultimately been dismissed for default.

14. The learned Family Court Judge, after hearing the parties and perusing the records, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, stating that he had not given the details of the date of the alleged desertion and that the respondent had left the matrimonial home without any reason. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

15. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records before us.

16. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that the respondent/wife, without any reason, had returned to her parental home one and a half years after she had rejoined the petitioner in January 2004 and had not returned to the matrimonial home. However, in the petition, the petitioner would submit that the cause of action arose on 05.07.2010, when he had issued a legal notice calling upon her to return and resume the matrimonial relationship and the respondent had failed to do so. However, even in the legal notice, Ex.P.2, the petitioner had not stated the date, month or the period from which the respondent had left the matrimonial home. That apart, it is seen from the counter of the respondent that she had been ready and willing to rejoin the petitioner. She would also submit that the legal notice had been issued on 05.07.2010 and, even without waiting for a reply, the petition for divorce had been filed on 20.07.2010, which would go a long way to show the intention of the petitioner.

17. It is seen that the conduct of the petitioner is only to deprive the respondent and her son of any kind of maintenance. Earlier, the petitioner had filed H.M.O.P.No.340 of 2001 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The allegations contained in that petition as well as in the present divorce petition are identical, except for the ground on which divorce is sought. Pending the earlier H.M.O.P.No.340 of 2001, the respondent had filed an application for maintenance, which was also ordered on 28.08.2002. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing C.R.P.No.234 of 2002. The said Civil Revision Petition was dismissed and thereafter, in order to avoid payment of maintenance, the petitioner had withdrawn the said H.M.O.P. under the guise of rejoining the respondent. After the respondent had rejoined him along with her son, the petitioner had reverted to his earlier conduct of verbally and physically abusing her and demanding money from her.

18. It is also seen that, in one such episode, the respondent had lodged a complaint before the All Women’s Police Station, Pollachi (Ex.R.3), wherein the petitioner had given an undertaking that he would not repeat such behaviour. That apart, Ex.P.2, the legal notice dated 03.07.2010, would show that the petitioner had vacated the house where he and the respondent were living separately. This would clearly show that it was not the respondent who had deserted the petitioner. Further, the respondent was justified in staying away from the petitioner on account of his abusive behaviour, which would have a telling effect on the minor child.

19. The petitioner, who claims that the respondent had left the matrimonial home in June 2005, had issued a legal notice calling upon her to resume the matrimonial relationship only on 03.07.2010, nearly five years after the alleged desertion, and had immediately, within a period of two weeks, filed the petition for divorce. Therefore, the finding of the learned Judge that there is no evidence to show the date of the alleged desertion is justifiable, particularly when the respondent had produced Exs.R.10 to R.12, which are the letters written by her to her brother giving details of the acts of cruelty committed by the petitioner and his mother.

20. That apart, H.M.O.P.No.340 of 2001, which was based on the very same cause of action, had been dismissed for default, and the present petition had been filed on the very same cause of action, except for the issuance of the legal notice dated 13.07.2010. Therefore, in the absence of any specific details regarding the alleged desertion, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore in HMOP.No.802 of 2010 dated 05.03.2016.

21. In fine, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 07-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SHR To The Additional Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. SHR CMA No. 2959 of 2019 07-09-2026