Dismissed

S.Muthiayan v. Sundara Rajeswari

Madras HC2 Feb 2021CMSA/39/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal for dissolution of marriage, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that substantial questions raised were factual, not legal. It noted the spouses lived separately for years but refused to adjudicate facts at this stage as the prior divorce petitions were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

S.Muthiayan Vs Sundara Rajeswari — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02-02-2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

CMSA No.39 of 2001

S.Muthiayyan

vs.

Sundara Rajeswari ...Respondent/Respondent

¶9

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is preferred under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2000 made in CMA No.249 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam, confirming the order and decree dated 22.06.1999 made in HMOP No.38 of 1996 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.K.R.Rameshkumar For Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari

¶11

The unsuccessful husband in a petition for dissolution of marriage has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal.

¶12

The appellant filed HMOP for divorce, which was dismissed by the Trial Court, so also by the first Appellate Court.

¶13

It is brought to the notice of this Court that both the appellant and the respondent are not living together and they are living separately for many number of years.

¶14

In view of the fact that there is no scope for reunion and resumption of matrimonial home, no further adjudication needs to be entertained. Even otherwise, it is stated that the appellant is aged about more than 60 years and both the Courts have declined to grant dissolution of marriage.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

Beyond the fact that the spouses are living separately for long years, the substantial question of law raised in the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal relates to the facts, which cannot be construed as a substantial question of law, so as to adjudicate the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal on hand and on both these grounds, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal deserves to be rejected.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made a submission that long separation is also a ground for dissolution of marriage. However, those factual aspects cannot be adjudicated in the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal, as the substantial questions of law raised are relatable to the factual matrix of the case.

¶18

Thus, this Court is not inclined to consider those factual aspects and the spouses are living separately may be a good ground and the same cannot be considered at this length of time for the purpose of grant of dissolution of marriage, as the divorce petition filed by the husband was dismissed by the Trial Court as well as by the first Appellate Court. Thus, CMSA No.39 of 2001 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

s/d-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶21

True Copy

¶22

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶23

Svn

¶24

¶25

1.The Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam.

¶26

2.The Principal Sub Judge, Nagapattinam.

¶27

+1 CC to Mr.K.R.Rameshkumar, Advocate sr 6070.

¶28

C.M.S.A.No.39 of 2001

¶29

VD(CO) SP(09/09/2021)

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Muthiayan v. Sundara Rajeswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Muthiayan v. Sundara Rajeswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.R.Ponragu Vs Citicorp Finance India Ltd.

The General Manager Vs S.Poongothai

Kandasamy,S/O.Ramasamy Vs a.Said Abuthahir

Pappathi Vs Thangaraj

R.Sasikala, Vs the Commissioner of Workmen S

S.Muthiayan Vs Sundara Rajeswari