Two civil miscellaneous appeals filed by a wife against a common order of the Family Court dissolving denial of her divorce petition and allowing husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The High Court upheld the lower court's dismissal of the appeals.
Both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.247 & 248 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 12.10.2023 Delivered on: 08.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.247 & 248 of 2019
N.Poornima Devi .. Appellant / Petitioner in both CMAs
Vs.
S.K.Ganesan .. Respondent / Respondent in both CMAs
Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, against the fair and ex-order in H.M.O.P.Nos.284 of 2016 and 431 of 2017, dated 19.09.2018, pending on the file of the Family Court, Madurai.
(In both C.M.As)
For Appellant : Mr.P.R.Prithivi Raj For Respondent : No appearance
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by P.B.BALAJI,J.)
These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are at the instance of the
wife, who was the unsuccessful petitioner before the Family Court,
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.247 & 248 of 2019
Madurai, in H.M.O.P.No.284 of 2016, where she had sought for a decree of dissolution of her marriage with the respondent and the same came to be dismissed and in H.M.O.P.No.431 of 2017, where the petition filed by her husband, the respondent herein, seeking restitution of conjugal rights came to be allowed, in and by a common order.
The appellant and the respondent were married to each other on 08.09.2003. According to the wife, in her petition for divorce, the wife claimed that she never got to see her husband before her marriage and the first word spoken by her husband on the day of marriage during Grahapavesam function was that "the wife was black and ugly and that the husband did not like her". The husband left her with his parents at Sivagiri and went to work. The wife did not enjoy even basic amenities and even when the respondent was pregnant, her in-laws did not provide any help to
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.247 & 248 of 2019
her and it was only the neighbours, who came to her rescue and provided food so that she regained her health. The first baby was born on 18.08.2004 and a second baby was born on 30.03.2007.
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.247 & 248 of 2019
the children. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition for divorce.
the wife herself examined as P.W.1 and one Narasingaperumal was examined as P.W.2 and 5 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 on the side of the appellant. On the side of the respondent, the husband examined himself as R.W.1 and 14 documents were marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R14.
of the parties in the respective cases and also oral and documentary evidence adduced by them, dismissed the wife's petition for divorce and
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.247 & 248 of 2019
allowed the husband's petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
wife as appellant has preferred the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals on the following grounds:
(i) the Family Court failed to see that the petition for restitution
of conjugal rights was only a counter blast to the wife's divorce petition;
(ii) the Family Court has brushed aside the acts of cruelty pleaded by the appellant, without any justifiable reasons;
(iii) the Family Court failed to see that the husband admitted to the lack of basic amenities in his parent's house and ought to have taken this as an act of mental cruelty;
(iv) the Family Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence with regard to the non-provision of the medical help when the appellant was pregnant, viz., Ex.R14 - Medical certificate produced by the husband which was issued by a private Doctor and the Family Court erred in relying upon the same, in the absence of the Doctor being examined; and
(v) the Family Court erred in holding that since the husband was
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.247 & 248 of 2019
sending money to the wife, the same would not automatically mean that the husband was a dutiful father.
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.247 & 248 of 2019
not denied such claims made by the appellant as being false and baseless. It is an admitted fact that the appellant and the respondent were blessed with two sons, the first son born on 18.08.2004 and the second son born on 30.03.2007.
restitution of conjugal rights, before the Family Court. The father of the appellant has been examined and he has stated that even before the marriage, an engagement function was celebrated, in which, the respondent participated personally and that the engagement was held and celebrated only at his residence. Insofar as the allegation that the respondent left the appellant in his parents' house, where there were no basis amenities, that too, for a lady to reside comfortably, it is seen from the evidence that even though the respondent accepted about the lack of amenities in his parents' house, but, it is seen that subsequently, the respondent has taken the appellant to the residential quarters provided by employer which would only go to show that the appellant was living with the respondent's parents only temporarily. Further, it is not also possible to accept the version of the appellant as it is highly improbable that the appellant or at least her
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.247 & 248 of 2019
parents would not have visited the respondent's parents before the marriage. Insofar as the allegations that the parents of the respondent did not provide proper medical assistance to the appellant, when she was pregnant, the respondent has exhibited Ex.R13. Ex.R13 produced by the respondent would go to show that the stand of the appellant that the respondent did not provide any medical help to the appellant during her
pregnancy, is not true. Insofar as the claims of the appellant that the respondent was suffering from venereal disease, the appellant has not been able to prove such claim by adducing acceptable documentary evidence. On the contrary, the respondent has filed Doctor's certificate to belittle such false claim made by the appellant. The further relevant circumstances that militate against the allegations made by the appellant are the birth of the 2 children on 18.08.2004 and 30.03.2007. In the light of two sons being born to the appellant and the respondent after their marriage on 08.09.2003, it only raises very serious doubts over the truth in the allegations made by the appellant.
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.247 & 248 of 2019
not uncommon and would not amount to causing mental agony to the appellant. The Family Court has also taken note of the fact that the respondent has abandoned trial mid-way and never chose to appear thereafter. However, despite the same, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to substantiate her allegations of cruelty, entitling her to a decree of dissolution of marriage and that the
respondent has withdrawn himself from the matrimony, without any valid reason and therefore, the respondent was entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
at by the Family Court, warranting interference in the Appeals before us.
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(T.K.R.J.) & (P.B.B.J) 08.11.2023
Internet : Yes Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No Ls
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.247 & 248 of 2019
To
1.The Family Court,
Madurai.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.247 & 248 of 2019
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J., and P.B.BALAJI,J
Ls
judgment in C.M.A.(MD).Nos.247 & 248 of 2019
08.11.2023
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court erred in dismissing the wife's petition for dissolution of marriage and allowing the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
Whether the alleged cruelty and lack of amenities constituted sufficient ground for grant of divorce decree.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the findings of family court on factual disputes regarding marital discord.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Poornima Devi
S.K.Ganesan
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
P.B.BALAJI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
