Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed by husband challenging dismissal of divorce application based on desertion and cruelty. Court held cohabitation evidence disproved desertion; lack of specific cruelty instances made grounds unsustainable under Section 100 CPC.
Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal stands dismissed; no 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.S.A(MD)No.25 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 09.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.S.A(MD)No.25 of 2016
N.Ilavarasan ... Petitioner/ Appellant / Appellant Vs. Indira ... Respondent / Respondent/ Respondent
PRAYER : This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2015 made in C.M.A.No.23 of 2014, on the file of III Additional District Court, Thanjavur confirming the Judgment and decree dated 04.04.2014 made in H.M.O.P No.20 of 2009, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Arun Jayatram
For Respondent : Mr.K.Kumaravel
1 / 6
C.M.S.A(MD)No.25 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been filed by the husband challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, dismissing his application for grant of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty.
2 / 6
C.M.S.A(MD)No.25 of 2016
wife are living in the same address and the wife had produced Ex.R.11 and Ex.R.
12 to establish the fact that the husband and wife are residing in the same address. Therefore, the question of alleged desertion by the wife has been falsified by production of Ex.R.11 and Ex.R.12.
“ A. Whether the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is in conformity with Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. wherein the Lower Appellate Court has not framed necessary issues for determination and failed to render finding on each issue separately?
3 / 6
C.M.S.A(MD)No.25 of 2016
B. Whether the appellant is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion?
C. Whether the finding rendered by the Lower Appellate Court in the judgment will justify the conclusion?
D. Is not finding of the Lower Appellate Court has been on mere surmise and conjective without any legal basis?”
4 / 6
C.M.S.A(MD)No.25 of 2016
not pointed out any specific instance either in pleading or in the evidence to establish that the wife has committed cruelty. Therefore, the other questions of law are merely factual issues which cannot be considered as a substantial question of law warranting interference by this Court under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure.
09.03.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Nsr
To
3.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5 / 6
C.M.S.A(MD)No.25 of 2016
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
Nsr
C.M.S.A(MD)No.25 of 2016
09.03.2023
6 / 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is in conformity with Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. as it failed to frame necessary issues and render separate findings?
Whether the appellant is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion?
Whether the findings of the Lower Appellate Court regarding continued cohabitation and lack of specific cruelty are supported by legal basis or mere surmise?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
N.Ilavarasan
Indira
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
