—

Madras High Court

V.Thavasankarapandian vs Punitha on 8 February, 2024

Author: G.Jayachandran

Bench: G.Jayachandran

C.M.A.(MD).No.18 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 08.02.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

C.M.A.(MD).No.18 of 2024

V.Thavasankarapandian .. Appellant/Petitioner

Vs.

Punitha .. Respondent/Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family
Courts Act, 1984, r/w Section 104 of Civil Procedure Code, against the
order passed in H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2020 on the file of the Family Court,
Ramanathapuram dated 04.01.2022.

For Appellant : Mr.K.Elancheziyan

For Respondent : Mr.A.Kannan

Page 1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.18 of 2024

JUDGMENT

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

and
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the husband

aggrieved by the dismissal of the divorce petition filed on the ground of

cruelty and desertion.

2. The facts of the case is that the marriage between the appellant and

the respondent was solemnized on 22.05.2015 as per Hindu rites and

customs and only for 15 days, they both lived as husband and wife together

and thereafter, the appellant has left the matrimonial home to Chennai to eke

his livelihood. After the appellant left the matrimonial home, the

respondent/wife had left the matrimonial home, joined her parents and was

continuing her employment as Teacher in the nearby Village.

3. It is contended by the appellant that once in two months, he used to

visit the respondent and at one point of time, the respondent forced him to

have a separate family and therefore, they have got separated. To settle the

matrimonial dispute amicably, when they went to the house of the

Page 2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.18 of 2024

respondent, there was some petty quarrel and therefore, a complaint was

registered against the appellant and his family members by the respondent.

In the said complaint, the police enquired and advised the appellant to set up

nuclear family, for which the appellant agreed, but, however the respondent

did not respond to that and did not join the appellant. In the said

circumstances, left with no other go, the appellant filed a petition for

divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. Immediately to counter

blast, the respondent/wife lodged a police complaint against the appellant

and his family members. According to the appellant, by filing a criminal

complaint under Section 498A IPC, the mental cruelty got aggravated. The

appellant was forced to approach the Hon’ble High Court to quash the said

FIR in Crime No.12 of 2020 dated 24.07.2020 and succeeded. In the said

background, divorce was sought for by the appellant.

4. The divorce petition was opposed by the respondent on the ground

that desertion was only by the appellant, who under the guise of

employment left the respondent at his house, but did not care to maintain

her and visit her. Therefore, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home

and be under the care and protection of her parents. Occasionally, the
Page 3 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.18 of 2024

appellant came to meet her, but only to extract money and demand dowry.

After waiting for five years that the appellant will change his attitude and

found that he will not, the respondent gave a complaint to the All Women

Police Station at Keelakarai. Based on the said complaint, the Police

enquired and advised the appellant to set up nuclear house and take back the

respondent. However, the appellant deliberately and willfully failed to set

up nuclear house. Left with no other option, another complaint was given.

However, suppressing the facts, the appellant and his family members got

the complaint quashed.

5. The Trial Court on considering the evidence held that the appellant

has failed to prove desertion and cruelty and dismissed the divorce petition.

Being aggrieved, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband submitted

that the marriage, which took place on 22.05.2015, was short lived and

within 15 days, the appellant and the respondent got separated and nearly

nine years have lapsed. All attempts for reunion had not only ended in

failure, but had also aggravated the situation by lodging criminal complaint,
Page 4 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.18 of 2024

which was ultimately found to be a false complaint and quashed by this

Court. In the said circumstances, without considering the fact that the

marriage has irretrievably broken down and the parties have reached a point

of no return, the Trial Court had dismissed the divorce petition inspite of

own admission of the respondent that she is not willing to join the appellant.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submitted

that the appellant is not interested in reunion or to revive the matrimonial

bond, but is only after the salary of the respondent, who is gainfully

employed as a Teacher. The learned counsel further contended that the

appellant has extra marital affair at Chennai and he rarely visits

Ramanathapuram to see the respondent.

8. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials

available on record.

9. The factual matrix of the case clearly indicates that a short lived

marital life had reached a point of no return and the mutual trust which is

necessary for a marital bond is totally absent in this case. The long
Page 5 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.18 of 2024

separation, allegations and counter allegations, criminal complaints, all put

together clearly indicates that both the parties have the illusion of being

subjected to cruelty by the other person. In the said circumstances, there is

no purpose in keeping the marital bond only on paper. Considering the age

of the parties and the long separation as well as the mutual allegations of

cruelty against each other, this Court is of the view that the marriage held

between the appellant and the respondent has to be dissolved. Accordingly,

the marriage solemnized between the appellant and respondent on

22.05.2015 is hereby dissolved.

10. In the result, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the

Family Court, Ramanathapuram in H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2020 dated

04.01.2022 is set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(G.J.,J.) (C.K.,J.)
08.02.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm

Page 6 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.18 of 2024

To
1.The Family Court,
Ramanathapuram.

2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.

Page 7 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.18 of 2024

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

Lm

C.M.A.(MD).No.18 of 2024

08.02.2024

Page 8 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis