Partly allowed

A.Sengoleraj v. Irudhaya Bernadeth

Madras HC30 Jan 2024CMA(MD)/25/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed this civil miscellaneous appeal filed by a husband to set aside a previous divorce petition order. The court acknowledged the wife's specific condition regarding residence and employment, leading to the dissolution of the marriage and setting aside the lower court order favoring the divorce suit.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the marriage between the appellant and respondent is dissolved. No order as to costs.

A.Sengoleraj Vs Irudhaya Bernadeth — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD)No.30 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 30.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

C.M.A.(MD)No.25 of 2022

A.Sengoleraj

... Appellant

Vs.

Irudhaya Bernadeth ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the fair and executable order passed in I.D.O.P.No.47 of 2021 dated 21.09.2021, on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Madurai.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.R.Meyyappan

¶13

**J U D G M E N T ********************

¶14

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the husband against the judgment made in I.D.O.P.No.47 of 2021 dated 21.09.2021, on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Madurai.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1 / 6

¶17

C.M.A.(MD)No.30 of 2022

¶18

2. The appellant / husband has filed the divorce petition

¶19

seeking to annul the marriage conducted between the appellant / husband and the respondent / wife. Both the appellant and the respondent were married and are having two children. The appellant and the respondent are employed, but were placed in different places. Hence due to their employment, they had lived separately all these years and as on date both are retired from service.

¶20

3. The contention of the respondent wife is that she had never

¶21

deserted the husband or husband's place. It is due to her employment she was forced to live separately. However, the husband is frequently demanding the wife’s income, hence there was some misunderstanding between the appellant and the respondent.

¶22

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted

¶23

that the respondent was not inclined to live with the appellant, for which he relied on the deposition of the respondent before the Trial Court, wherein the respondent had specifically stated as follows:

¶24

“vdJ fztUld; vdJ fzth; tPlhd fhisahh;nfhtpy; tPl;oy; ehd; nrh;e;J thH;tjw;F jahuhf ,y;iy. ehd; vd; fztUld; nrh;e;J thHj; jahh;> Mdhy; vdJ fzth; tPlhd fhisahh;nfhtpy; tPl;oy; nrh;e;J thH;tjw;F jahuhf ,y;iy. vdJ

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

2 / 6

¶27

C.M.A.(MD)No.30 of 2022

¶28

fzth; trpf;Fk; ,lj;jpy; ehd; nrh;e;J thHj; jahuhf ,y;iy. ”

¶29

5. The respondent wife has specifically deposed that she is interested in living with her husband but not in the husband's house which is situated in Kalaiyarkovil. As of now the respondent is living in Madurai. The respondent wife had attained superannuation in the year 2022, but still she is continuing her job as a Teacher. Therefore, she has to stay in Madurai and continue her profession. Further, the respondent wife is apprehending that if she lives in Kalaiyarkovil, the appellant will be demanding her money and the same would lead to further misunderstanding.

¶30

6. After considering the deposition of the respondent wife, wherein she has categorically expressed that she is not willing to live with her husband in Kalaiyarkovil, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent wife has certain conditions to live with her husband. Taking note of their age and taking note of their independent attitude and when a specific plea was raised by the respondent that she is not willing to live with her husband in Kalaiyarkovil, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below.

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

3 / 6

¶33

C.M.A.(MD)No.30 of 2022

¶34

7. Accordingly, the impugned order passed in I.D.O.P.No.47 of

¶35

2021 dated 21.09.2021, on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Madurai is hereby set aside and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

30.01.2024

¶37

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No MR

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

4 / 6

¶40

C.M.A.(MD)No.30 of 2022

¶41

¶42

1.The IV Additional District Court,

¶43

Madurai.

¶44

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section,

¶45

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

5 / 6

¶48

C.M.A.(MD)No.30 of 2022

¶49

S.SRIMATHY, J.

¶50

¶51

C.M.A.(MD)No.25 of 2022

¶52

30.01.2024

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

6 / 6

A.Sengoleraj v. Irudhaya Bernadeth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sengoleraj v. Irudhaya Bernadeth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Branch Manager, Vs K. Elangovan

M. Elizabeth Geetha Vs Manoj Soni

Sudharson Babu Vs Bhaskaran

Thankamani Vs Kadayanaloor Municipality

Rabi Vs Manju

The Commandant, Vs a. Viji