Dismissed¶25

V.Porkodi, v. G.Subramani

Madras HC17 Oct 2025CMA/1340/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; C.M.A. under Section 19 Family Courts Act; divorce decree of Family Court, Chennai (O.P.No.3014 of 2006) confirmed; cruelty allegations by both spouses; separation since 2006; irretrievable breakdown; Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 relied on by court below; mediation failed; appeal dismissed; liberty for other claims preserved.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court is confirmed, with liberty preserved for the appellant or her son to pursue any other legal right or claim against the respondent. ¶25

V.Porkodi, Vs G.Subramani — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and decree of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in O.P.No.3014 of 2006 dissolving the marriage should be set aside on the wife's appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, or confirmed in view of the prolonged separation and irretrievable breakdown.

¶11

Court's answer

This Court holds that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and reached a point of no return.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The decree of divorce granted by the Family Court is confirmed, and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.

¶25

Key takeaways

If the appellant or her son has any other legal right or claim against the respondent, the dismissal of this appeal shall not preclude them from working out their remedy in the manner known to law.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (Dr.G. Jayachandran and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, JJ.; judgment delivered by Dr.G. Jayachandran, J.) dismissed C.M.A.No.1340 of 2018, filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act by V. Porkodi challenging the decree of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in O.P.No.3014 of 2006 dissolving her marriage to G. Subramani (solemnized 05.09.2005; separated since 2006; one son born 11.08.2006). The Family Court, having found no possibility of peaceful cohabitation and having relied on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, had dissolved the marriage vide order dated 08.08.2017 (prayer cites decree dated 15.11.2017). With more than fifteen years elapsed, failed mediation, and heated exchanges persisting, this Court held the marriage irretrievably broken down and at a point of no return, confirmed the divorce decree and dismissed the appeal, expressly preserving the appellant's and her son's freedom to work out any other legal right or claim against the respondent in the manner known to law.

¶1

C.M.A.No.1340 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR.G. JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR C.M.A.No.1340 of 2018

V.Porkodi

... Appellant(s)

Vs.

G.Subramani

... Respondent(s)

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2017 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in O.P.No.3014 of 2006.

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr.S.Vijayanand For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.Jayachander

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

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

¶15

C.M.A.No.1340 of 2018

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. )

¶18

The marriage between Mr.G.Subramani and Ms.V.Porkodi was solemnized on 05.09.2005 at I.C.F. Golden Jubilee Thirumana Mandapam, Chennai. The marital relationship, however, turned strained, and a son was born to them on 11.08.2006. Alleging cruelty, the husband filed O.P.No.3014 of 2006 after the spouses got separated and were living apart for nearly ten years. In the divorce proceedings, the wife contended that she was ready and willing to resume cohabitation, but she was not permitted to do so. She also levelled allegations of physical harassment and ill-treatment. Both parties were examined, and Exhibits P1 to P3, including proof of marriage and notice from the wife to the husband, were marked.

¶19

The Family Court, taking note of the fact that the parties had been living separately since 2006 with no sign of reconciliation, and considering the mutual allegations of cruelty, held that there was no possibility of peaceful cohabitation. Relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Samar Ghosh -vs- Jaya Ghosh” reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511, and considering the long separation and the absence of any possibility of Page 2 of 5

¶20

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

¶21

C.M.A.No.1340 of 2018

¶22

reunion between the parties, as well as the apprehension of cruelty, the Family Court has dissolved the marriage vide order dated 08.08.2017.

¶23

Aggrieved by the said order dated 08.08.2017, the wife preferred the

¶24

present C.M.A. No.1340 of 2018 before this Court. The appeal has been pending for nearly seven years. Though the matter was referred to mediation, the attempt at reconciliation did not fructify. When the case was taken up for final hearing, there was again heated exchange of allegations through counsel. The fact remains that the marriage solemnized on 05.09.2005 came to an end shortly after one year. Immediately thereafter, the husband filed the Divorce Petition, but it took about eleven years for the Family Court to pass its final order. Aggrieved by the said order, the wife approached this Court by filing C.M.A.No.1340 of 2018 before the Hon’ble High Court. Even thereafter, nearly seven more years have passed. In total, more than fifteen years have gone by, yet there is no sign of reunion or any intention to forgive and forget.

¶25

In such circumstances, we are of the view that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and reached a point of no return. Hence, the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court is confirmed, and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. If the appellant or her son has any

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

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

¶28

C.M.A.No.1340 of 2018

¶29

other legal right or claim against the respondent, the dismissal of this appeal shall not preclude them from working out their remedy in the manner known

¶30

to law. No costs.

¶31

(Dr.G.J.,J.) (M.S.K.,J.) 17.10.2025

¶32

skr

¶33

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶34

¶35

I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

¶36