CMA/3671/2021 of THIRU K. PANNEERSELVAM Vs TMT. DEEPA SANKARI on 13 October 2026

Common Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.) These appeals have been filed against the common judgment and decree dated 11.05.2021 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Vellore, Vellore District, in F.C.O.P.Nos.1 of 2018 and 95 of 2019 respectively. Since the issue involved is inbetween the husband and wife, these appeals are heard together and disposed of by way of a common judgment.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant/ husband filed F.C.O.P.No.1 of 2018 seeking divorce and the respondent/ wife filed F.C.O.P.No.95 of 2019 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Both the petitions were clubbed together by the learned Judge Family Court, Vellore and the petition seeking divorce was dismissed and the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights was allowed by the Family Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 09.05.2001 at Sengunthar Mandabam, Gudiyatham as per the Hindu Rites and Customs and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a male child on 28.03.2002 and a female child on 27.01.2005. At the time of marriage, the appellant was working as Professor in Venkateswara Polytechnic College, Adukkambarai and the respondent was working as Assistant in the Indian Postal Department at Gudiyatham. The respondent took number of policies through her salary account and never spent any amount to the appellant and the children. When the appellant went to the respondent’s parents house with viral fever, the respondent and her mother insulted him by saying that he was suffering from HIV positive and forced the appellant to take blood test. On 20.12.2006, the appellant sustained injuries in his backbone in a road accident and the respondent failed to give her assistance to the appellant and did not spend any amount towards medical expenses. Thereafter, the appellant got job through TNPSC and joined duty at Public Works Department in Chennai. At that time, the respondent brought a servant maid from Gudiyatham and since the appellant did not like her services, he asked the respondent to terminate her services, however, the respondent refused to terminate her services and also insulted the appellant. Hence, the appellant filed F.C.O.P.No.1 of 2018 seeking divorce and the said petition was dismissed by the Family Court, Vellore.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the amount of cruelty meted out by the appellant in the hands of the respondent was detailed by the appellant before the Family court and the respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and she categorically admitted some of the facts alleged by the appellant and such admission is sufficient to grant divorce in favour of the appellant, however, the Family Court dismissed the divorce petition, which is not sustainable one.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that even a bare perusal of the cross examination of P.W.2/ appellant’s father makes it clear that the appellant and the respondent were living in the joint family along with himself and his wife for some years and he also admits that for some time both the appellant and the respondent handed over their salary to him to run the family and he also deposed that a separate residence was set up for the appellant and the respondent in their house in a portion and both the appellant and the respondent were living in the said portion along with their children.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted that the respondent took two Postal Life Insurance Policy marked as Ex.R4 and Ex.R6 and further submitted that Ex.R4 was taken in the name of the appellant and Ex.R6 was taken in the name of the respondent and the respondent paid the premium for both the policies. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant is a B.E. and M.Tech degree holder and the respondent is a B.Sc. and B.Ed. degree holder and further submitted that at the time of marriage, the appellant was working as Professor in Venkateswara Polytechnic College, Adukkambarai and the respondent was working as Assistant in the Indian Postal Department at Gudiyatham and after the birth of female child, the appellant secured a job in the Public Works Department as an Assistant Engineer and hence there is no disparity between the appellant and the respondent.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted that since the appellant’s parents refused to take care of the children, the respondent appointed servant maid to take care of them. The learned counsel further submitted that the Family Court after considering all the factual aspects, allowed the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights and ordered for reunion, which warrants no interference.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. The appellant seeks divorce on the ground of cruelty.

10. Perusal of records disclose that the appellant and the respondent were living in the joint family in the matrimonial home and they handed over their salary to the appellant’s father to run the family for some time and a separate residence was set up for the appellant and the respondent in a portion in the matrimonial home and both the appellant and the respondent were living in the said portion along with their children. The above facts does not disclose any cruelty meted out by the appellant.

11. The records further reveal that the respondent took two Postal Life Insurance Policy marked as Ex.R4 and Ex.R6 and Ex.R4 was taken in the name of the appellant and Ex.R6 was taken in the name of the respondent and the respondent paid the premium for both the policies. The appellant is a B.E. and M.Tech degree holder and the respondent is a B.Sc. and B.Ed. degree holder. At the time of marriage, the appellant was working as Professor in Venkateswara Polytechnic College, Adukkambarai and the respondent was working as Assistant in the Indian Postal Department at Gudiyatham and after the birth of female child, the appellant secured a job in the Public Works Department as an Assistant Engineer and hence there is no disparity between the appellant and the respondent.

12. The appellant also raised a ground for cruelty that the respondent brought a servant maid from Gudiyatham and since the appellant did not like her services, he asked the respondent to terminate her services, however, the respondent refused to terminate her services and also insulted the appellant. The records reveal that since the appellant’s parents refused to take care of the children, the respondent appointed servant maid to take care of them. Both the appellant and the respondent are employees working in Public Works Department and in Postal Department. In their absence, someone has to take care of the children, thereby, the respondent appointed servant maid for the well being of the children. The non termination of the servant maid would not amount to cruelty.

13. The Family Court after considering all the factual aspects, allowed the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights and ordered for reunion, which warrants no interference.

14. The civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed. The common judgment and decree dated 11.05.2021 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Vellore, Vellore District, in F.C.O.P.Nos.1 of 2018 and 95 of 2019 respectively, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No pri To The Judge, Family Court, Vellore, Vellore District.

M.DHANDAPANI J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE J. pri CMA No. 3671 of 2021 AND CMA NO. 3672 OF 2021,CMP NO. 21527 OF 2021, CMP NO. 21519 OF 2021,CMP NO. 21523 OF 2021 13-10-2026