Wife appealed against divorce granted to husband and dismissal of her restitution of conjugal rights petition. High Court re-appreciated evidence, upheld finding that she deserted the matrimonial home and her police complaint amounted to cruelty, confirming the Family Court's common judgment.
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).Nos.972 of 2023 and 1 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.972 of 2023 and 1 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.13573, 13575, 13577 of 2023 and 1 of 2024
C.M.A.(MD).No.972 of 2023
S.Shanthini .. Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
G.Raja .. Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2022, passed in H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2021, on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli and allow this appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar For Respondent : M/s.S.S.Prabhashini
Page 1 of 10
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.972 of 2023 and 1 of 2024
C.M.A.(MD).No.1 of 2024
S.Shanthini .. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
G.Raja .. Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, praying to set aside the common judgment and decree dated 22.11.2022, passed in H.M.O.P.No.416 of 2021, on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli and allow this appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar For Respondent : M/s.S.S.Prabhashini
COMMON JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the appellant/wife, who is unsuccessful in her petition for restitution of conjugal rights and also suffers a decree of divorce passed in the petition filed by the respondent/husband.
Page 2 of 10
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.972 of 2023 and 1 of 2024
Page 3 of 10
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.972 of 2023 and 1 of 2024
Page 4 of 10
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.972 of 2023 and 1 of 2024
pretext of keeping them in the bank locker in Chennai and the same was not returned. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant got conceived with medical assistance after eight years of marriage. This is because, due to the health condition of the respondent/husband, who is an alcohol addict. It is the further contention that the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law were frequently quarrelling with the appellant. They have taken possession of all her jewels and further, demanded money from the parents of the appellant, since the respondent faced loss in his business. It is contended that the above facts, though have been spoken by the witnesses and evidence, the same had not been considered by the Family Court.
Page 5 of 10
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.972 of 2023 and 1 of 2024
restitution of conjugal rights to counter blast the divorce petition and to cover up her voluntary withdrawal from the matrimonial home. The learned counsel by relying upon Ex.P18 and Ex.P19, which is a rough note maintained by the appellant, where she has recorded the receipt of jewels, money and dress from her mother-in-law and the same was admitted in the cross-examination, submitted that the allegation of the appellant that her jewels were taken away by her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law had been belied through the document maintained by the appellant herself. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the Family Court on proper appreciation of evidence has come to the conclusion that the marriage has to be dissolved on the ground of cruelty and for unreasonable withdrawal of the appellant from the matrimonial home.
(i) Whether the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 11.06.2009 has broken due to the voluntary withdrawal of the appellant from 18.07.2018 and whether her withdrawal from the matrimonial relationship is justifiable or would amount to desertion?
Page 6 of 10
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.972 of 2023 and 1 of 2024
(ii) Whether the criminal complaint filed by the appellant against the respondent/husband and his family members amounts to cruelty?
Page 7 of 10
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.972 of 2023 and 1 of 2024
business.
that the respondent was not making sufficient income and facing loss in his business.
Page 8 of 10
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.972 of 2023 and 1 of 2024
the learned counsels for the respective parties, finds that there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the Family Court. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed and the common order passed by the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli in H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2021 and H.M.O.P. No.416 of 2021 dated 22.11.2022 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(G.J.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 01.02.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm
To 1.The Family Court, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page 9 of 10
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.972 of 2023 and 1 of 2024
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
Lm
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.972 of 2023 and 1 of 2024
01.02.2024
Page 10 of 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the wife's withdrawal from the matrimonial home since 18.07.2018 was justifiable or amounted to desertion?
Whether the criminal complaint filed by the wife against the husband and his family amounts to cruelty?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Shanthini
G.Raja
G.Jayachandran
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
