Husband appealed against common judgment allowing wife's restitution of conjugal rights petition and dismissing his divorce petition. The High Court found cruelty was not proved, there was a fair chance of reunion, and a child's welfare favoured restitution, and confirmed the trial court's judgment, dismissing both appeals.
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.Nos.1521 and 1522 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.Nos.1521 and 1522 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
J.Murugan ... Appellant in both appeals Vs.
M.Sumathi ... Respondent in both appeals
COMMON PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the common judgment and decree dated 31.01.2007 passed in H.M.O.P.Nos.166 of 2003 and 114 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.III), Poonamallee.
In both appeals For Appellant : Mr.S.Ananth For Respondent : Mrs.T.Muthamilselvi
_________ Page 1 of 9
C.M.A.Nos.1521 and 1522 of 2008
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed under Section
28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the appellant/husband, namely J.Murugan against the common judgment passed in H.M.O.P.Nos.114 of 2004 seeking a decree for divorce and H.M.O.P.No.166 of 2003 filed by the respondent/wife for restitution of conjugal rights, by the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Poonamallee.
_________ Page 2 of 9
C.M.A.Nos.1521 and 1522 of 2008
Court below has failed to consider Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 adduced on behalf of the
_________ Page 3 of 9
C.M.A.Nos.1521 and 1522 of 2008
appellant and has come to a conclusion on mere presumption. He further submits that the finding rendered by the Court below as if the respondent/wife was forced to attempt suicide only due to the words adverted by the appellant against the respondent was arrived at without going into the facts of the case and thereby, the entire findings arrived by the Tribunal is vitiated. That apart, the discussion made by the Court below against the mother of the appellant who was nothing to do with the incident which led to filing of the present proceedings by the respective parties and in the absence of any evidence to prove the said fact, the judgment rendered by the Court below is vitiated and non-est in law. It is also submitted that the Court below has not taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.2/independent witness before arriving at the conclusion. In such circumstances, in the interest of the parties, the petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights ought not to have been allowed and the divorce ought to have been granted.
_________ Page 4 of 9
C.M.A.Nos.1521 and 1522 of 2008
behalf of both sides and after going through the common judgment passed
_________ Page 5 of 9
C.M.A.Nos.1521 and 1522 of 2008
by the Court below, is of the view that the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights is to be allowed on the basis of the evidence placed before the trial Court. It is not in dispute that there were certain differences between the parties. However, a cruelty alleged by the appellant against the respondent/wife was not proved and that the oral evidence of the witnesses also substantiates that there has been a fair chance of re-union and the Lower Court has recorded that the differences that occurred between the appellant and the respondent was mainly due to intrusion of the mother of the appellant/husband into the family affairs of the appellant and the respondent/wife. The learned Judge has also recorded that though there was an attempt made by the respondent/wife alleging cruelty at the hands of the appellant/husband, the root cause for taking such an extreme stand could be attributed to both the parties, namely, husband and wife and therefore, the learned Judge found that even though there may be some differences and disputes between the
parties, still there was a fair chance of reunion. Moreover, since there is a male child born out of wedlock, the future of the child will get affected if a
_________ Page 6 of 9
C.M.A.Nos.1521 and 1522 of 2008
decree for divorce is granted. Hence, the Lower Court has dismissed the petition for divorce and allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. This Court is of the view that the Trial Court has gone into the evidence and has recorded the valid reasons for allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and dismissing the petition for divorce. Hence, the common judgment and decree dated 31.01.2007 passed in H.M.O.P.Nos.166 of 2003 and 114 of 2024 by the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.III), Poonamallee is hereby confirmed.
8. Accordingly, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals fail and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.11.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No
ssb
_________ Page 7 of 9
C.M.A.Nos.1521 and 1522 of 2008
To
_________ Page 8 of 9
C.M.A.Nos.1521 and 1522 of 2008
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
ssb
C.M.A.Nos.1521 and 1522 of 2008
13.11.2024
_________ Page 9 of 9
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court correctly allowed restitution of conjugal rights and dismissed the husband's divorce petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
J.Murugan
M.Sumathi
M.Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
