Appeal against trial court order denying restitution of conjugal rights and granting divorce. High Court dismissed the appeal holding no infirmity in trial court's finding of cruelty.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed confirming the order dated 18.10.2016 denying restitution of conjugal rights.
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.No.314 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
C.M.A.No.314 of 2017
K.Rajesh ..Appellant
Vs.
Vidya Lakshmi Rajesh ..Respondent
Prayer:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act against the common order and decreetal order dated 18.10.2016 made by the II Additional Family Court at Chennai in H.M.O.P.No.4020 of 2012 denying the relief of restitution of conjugal rights to the appellant, while allowing H.M.O.P.No.1521 of 2013 granting divorce to the respondent.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Swaminathan For Respondent : Mr.A.Ganesh.
Page 1/8
C.M.A.No.314 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(The order of the Court was made by Mrs.J.Nisha Banu,J.)
This Appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband challenging the denial of restitution of conjugal rights filed by the appellant passed
by the learned II Additional Family Judge in O.P.No.4020 of 2012 by common order dated 18.10.2016.
C.M.A.No.314 of 2017
respectively. The appellant came with his parents, respondent and their children to Chennai on 26.06.2006 to attend two weddings. On 01.07.2006, the respondent's mother came to the wedding hall at Pondy bazaar and created a scene stating that the appellant lost his right to live with his wife and children, pointing out the loss he had suffered in his business and forcibly took the respondent and the children to her house.
(ii) After counselling by respondent's uncle, the appellant closed his business. He joined in M/s. Shriram EPC Ltd., as Manager Marketing and he was living with his parents at Chennai. The appellant also sought to return Rs.15 lakhs by way of DD and delivered to the respondent's parents, but the DD was returned after 2, 3 days for reasons unknown. A letter dated 01.03.2011 sent through lawyer was replied vide her lawyer notice dated 21.03.2011 making untenable allegations against the appellant, accusing of drinking and smoking, apart from giving false information by the appellant about his educational qualifications etc. at the time of marriage.
(iii) The appellant's father is an epileptic patient and he has been taking medicines and it was informed to the respondent's parents even before marriage. The appellant did not beat his father as stated by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3/8
C.M.A.No.314 of 2017
respondent, but on occasions of violent fits, he had comforted his father by patting on his back. The appellant had stopped drinking even before the birth of his first daughter. The appellant was not even allowed to visit his daughters. Hence, he filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
Page 4/8
C.M.A.No.314 of 2017
appellant. There is no possibility of reunion. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of O.P.No.4020/2012 filed for restitution of conjugal rights.
married on 14.12.2000 and due to wedlock, they have got two
Page 5/8
C.M.A.No.314 of 2017
daughters. The appellant himself had admitted that he had social drinking and smoking habit. It is also admitted by the appellant/husband that there was loss in his business. The respondent/wife had given evidence that the creditors used to come to the house and demanded for nonpayment of money which caused her mental cruelty. The respondent/wife had given evidence that the appellant used to drink liquor and fell down in the street and often she used to go in search of him in the midnights. The respondent had also stated that the appellant/husband committed an act of mental cruelty and physical cruelty to the respondent. She had also deposed before the trial court that even though visitation rights was given to the appellant/husband, he stopped visiting the children.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6/8
C.M.A.No.314 of 2017
this Court. Therefore, this appeal filed for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be entertained and the same has got to be dismissed.
(J.N.B,J.) (R.S.V., J.) 20.11.2024 (2/2)
Index : Yes / No vsi
To
The II Additional Family Court, Chennai
J. NISHA BANU, J.
Page 7/8
C.M.A.No.314 of 2017
and R.SAKTHIVEL,J.
vsi
C.M.A.No.314 of 2017
20.11.2024
(2/2)
Page 8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain the appeal seeking restitution of conjugal rights when the trial court has already granted divorce to the respondent on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Whether the trial court's finding that the appellant committed mental and physical cruelty warrants interference by this Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Rajesh
Vidya Lakshmi Rajesh
J.Nisha Banu
R.Sakthivel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
