Appeal against dismissal of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Court dismissed appeal noting evidence of cruelty, police complaints, and nearly 20 years of separation made reconciliation impossible.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. No costs awarded.
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)No.1635 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 19.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD)No. 1635 of 2010
N.Sankar Pandiyan ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
Sree Jamol ...Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 55 of Indian Divorce Act to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the Principal District Judge. Thoothukudi, in I.D.O.P.No.327
of 2009 dated 03.09.2010 and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises under the following circumstances:
i) The appellant had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal
rights before the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.
ii) The respondent opposed the petition stating that the appellant
Page No.1 of 5
C.M.A.(MD)No.1635 of 2010
had caused cruelty and demanded dowry, due to which the respondent had left the matrimonial home and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed;
iii) The appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2, besides marking Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 on his side. The respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R.1.
iv) The trial court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, held that the appellant and the respondent did not have a cordial relationship; that there is evidence to show that the respondent had given complaints against the appellant for dowry demand and cruelty and that the complaints filed by the respondents were registered as First Information Reports by the police and the investigation was under progress and that since the respondent had suffered cruelty at the hands of the appellant, the appellant would not be entitled to the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaints filed by the respondent were not true and that the appellant was always ready and willing to live with the respondent; that the respondent due to ill-advice given by certain family members, had left
Page No.2 of 5
C.M.A.(MD)No.1635 of 2010
the matrimonial home and he is also willing to take back the respondent and live with her.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, submitted
that the trial court had rightly dismissed the petition based on the evidence on record to show that the appellant had subjected her to cruelty and therefore, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home.
'Whether the appellant is entitled to an order of restitution of conjugal rights?'
Page No.3 of 5
C.M.A.(MD)No.1635 of 2010
on either side suggests that the respondent had complained of cruelty on
account of dowry demand against the appellant. In such circumstances, the respondent cannot be compelled to live with the appellant.
5. This Court finds that the finding of the tribunal that reconciliation was not possible and that the appellant is not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights cannot be faulted. In any case, admittedly, the appellant and the respondent have been living separately since 2005 for about 20 years. No useful purpose would be served even if this Court were to hold that the appellant is entitled to restitution of conjugal rights. The point is answered accordingly Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
19.08.2024 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No CM
To
Page No.4 of 5
C.M.A.(MD)No.1635 of 2010
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
CM
Judgment made in C.M.A(MD)No. 1635 of 2010
19.08.2024
Page No.5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to an order of restitution of conjugal rights?
Whether the respondent can be compelled to live with the appellant given evidence of cruelty and long separation?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Sankar Pandiyan
Sree Jamol
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
