CMA/2908/2021 of GNANADURAI Vs DIVYA on 13 October 2026

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.) The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2021 passed in H.M.O.P.No.321 of 2020 on the file of the Family Court, Perambalur, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 24.08.2010 and out of the wedlock, a male child, namely, Mithran Priyan, was born on 26.06.2013. According to the appellant, after the birth of the child, the respondent left the matrimonial home and started residing with her mother at Neikuppai Village.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the appellant was residing in a joint family along with his mother and two brothers at Perambalur. Owing to the disputes in the joint family, the appellant intended to establish a separate matrimonial household at Perambalur. However, the respondent did not cooperate with the said arrangement. It is further contended that the respondent has been living separately since 2013 and that the Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. Hence, the learned counsel would pray for allowing the appeal.

C.M.A.No.2908 of 2021

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent initially resided with the appellant for about eleven months at Jaipur, Rajasthan, where the appellant was employed. After the birth of the child, the parties returned and resided in the appellant’s parental home along with his mother and brothers. Subsequently, disputes arose in the family.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that the appellant himself had expressed his intention to establish a separate household, as it was not feasible to continue in the joint family. Therefore, the respondent’s separate residence cannot, by itself, be construed as desertion. In the absence of sufficient evidence establishing the statutory ground for dissolution of marriage, the learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

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

7. The point for consideration is whether the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage, warrants interference by this Court.

C.M.A.No.2908 of 2021

8. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 24.08.2010 and that a male child was born to them on 26.06.2013. The principal grievance of the appellant is that the respondent has been residing separately since 2013 and that such separation constitutes a ground for dissolution of marriage.

9. However, the mere fact that the parties have been residing separately would not, by itself, be sufficient to establish a ground for dissolution of marriage. The Court has to examine the pleadings and evidence on record and determine whether the statutory requirements for the ground pleaded by the appellant have been established. In the present case, the submissions of the parties indicate that disputes arose in the matrimonial home in the context of the appellant’s desire to establish a separate household away from the joint family. The circumstances surrounding the separation and the conduct of the parties have to be considered in their entirety. The fact that the respondent did not agree to the appellant’s proposed arrangement cannot, in isolation, be treated as sufficient proof of desertion.

10. Further, the appellant is required to establish the ground on which dissolution of marriage is sought by adducing cogent evidence. The mere assertion that the respondent has been living separately for a considerable period would not dispense with the requirement of proving the essential

C.M.A.No.2908 of 2021

ingredients of the statutory ground pleaded. On a consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Family Court.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the appellant has not made out a case warranting interference with the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Perambalur. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2021 passed in H.M.O.P.No.321 of 2020 on the file of the Family Court, Perambalur. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, shall stand closed. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sts To:

1) The Family Court, Perambalur.

2) The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104

C.M.A.No.2908 of 2021

M.DHANDAPANI J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE J. sts Judgment made in C.M.A.No.2908 of 2021 Dated: 13-10-2026