Allowed¶12

R. Raman v. S.A. Thangamani

Madras HC7 Nov 2025CMA/2280/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cruelty inferred from willful withdrawal from consortium; Section 13(1)(a) Hindu Marriage Act 1955 divorce granted; Section 19 Family Court Act 1984 appeal against Family Court Coimbatore dismissal; wife gave no explanation for not rejoining despite legal notice dated 05.04.2010; Maintenance Case and Guardian Original Petition numbered only after reply to notice; GOP dismissed; no attempt at reunion; marriage dated 01.02.1998 dissolved; C.M.A.No.2280 of 2016; Madras High Court; decided 07.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed; Family Court order dismissing the divorce petition set aside and the marriage solemnized on 01.02.1998 dissolved; no order as to costs. ¶12

R. Raman Vs S.A. Thangamani — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed; Family Court order dismissing the divorce petition set aside and the marriage solemnized on 01.02.1998 dissolved; no order as to costs.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent's willful withdrawal from the matrimonial home/consortium, despite notice calling upon her to rejoin the appellant, is a sufficient ground to infer cruelty under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 so as to sustain the prayer for dissolution of marriage.

¶7

Court's answer

The excuse given by the respondent for her withdrawal from the matrimonial companionship sounds very frivolous.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

No explanation was given by the respondent for not joining her husband despite receiving the legal notice requesting her to do so.

¶8

Key takeaways

On the day notice Ex.P.1 was issued, the Guardian Original Petition and the Maintenance Case were not even numbered; they were numbered only after the respondent sent her reply.ratio¶9
It is very clear that the respondent had no intention to rejoin her husband even when notice was issued in the year 2010.ratio¶10
There is no evidence of any attempt by the respondent at reunion, and the Guardian Original Petition filed by her was dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Dr. G. Jayachandran & Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, JJ.), 07.11.2025 — C.M.A.No.2280 of 2016, R.Raman v. S.A.Thangamani: Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016 in H.M.O.P.No.443 of 2011 (Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore) dismissing the husband's divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Married on 01.02.1998; son born 05.01.1999; the wife left after delivery and did not rejoin despite notice dated 05.04.2010; her Maintenance Case and Guardian Original Petition were numbered only after her reply to the notice, and the Guardian Original Petition was later dismissed. Finding her excuse for withdrawal frivolous, with no explanation for ignoring the legal notice and no attempt at reunion, the Court found the Family Court's order liable to be interfered with, set it aside and dissolved the marriage solemnized on 01.02.1998. Appeal allowed; no order as to costs.

¶1

C.M.A.No.2280 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 07.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

C.M.A.No.2280 of 2016

¶8

R.Raman S/o N.K.Ramasamy No.4/25, D.F.O.Compound, Race Course, Coimbatore.

¶9

.... Appellant

¶10

¶11

S.A.Thangamani W/o Raman Care of S.A.Rajamani Sugarcane Institute Seeranaickenpalayam, Coimbatore.

¶12

.... Respondent

¶13

Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act 1984, against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016 made in H.M.O.P.No.443 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore.

¶14

_______________ Page 1 of 6_

¶15

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

¶16

For Appellant :Mr.C.R.Prasanan For Respondent :Ms.G.Lavanya for Mr.T.Sai Krishnan

¶17

C.M.A.No.2280 of 2016

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.

¶20

Petition for divorce filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed by the Family Court, Coimbatore. Hence, the present appeal.

¶21

According to the appellant, the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnized on 01.02.1998. Out of the said wedlock, a male child was born on 05.01.1999. The respondent went to her parents' house for delivery and even after three months after the birth of the child, she did not return to her matrimonial home inspite of repeated requests. The sister of the respondent Ms.Kalamani and her brother Mr.Rajamani did not allow the respondent to join her husband. This caused mental agony to the appellant leading to an attempt to commit suicide.

¶22

The further allegation is that he has spent money for the treatment of his mother-in-law and to secure teacher job for the respondent in a

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

C.M.A.No.2280 of 2016

¶26

private school and despite that, the respondent, on the ill advice of her sister and sister's husband had left the matrimonial home. She had been under the clutches of her sister and sister's husband. Hence, a police complaint was given for illegal detention. However, the police had closed the complaint recording the statement of the respondent that she will work out her remedy through the Court.

¶27

Alleging further that when he caused notice to the respondent on 05.04.2010 calling upon her to join him within 10 days, she replied stating that she has already instituted Maintenance Case and Guardian Original Petition and hence she will wait for the outcome of the proceedings.

¶28

Having waited for a period of two years, the appellant has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The respondent has filed a counter stating that the appellant had contracted heavy debt in his native place and unable to meet out his debt he attempted to commit suicide and also was demanding money from her parents. He failed to maintain her which forced her to part the company and take shelter under her well wishers.

¶29

_______________ Page 3 of 6_

¶30

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

¶31

C.M.A.No.2280 of 2016

¶32

The Court below on considering the evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the petition for divorce on the ground that the appellant has failed to establish cruelty and since he has not filed a petition for desertion, he cannot sustain his prayer.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant specifically submits that the willful withdrawal from the consortium by the respondent, despite notice calling upon her to re-join him, is a sufficient ground to infer cruelty. The respondent, even after order dated 31.03.2016 had not taken any steps for re-union and in fact her Guardian Original Petition with frivolous contentions to get custody of the child got dismissed and the son is being brought up by the appellant. The cruelty has to be inferred by the willful withdrawal of the matrimonial home and also discarding the responsibility of taking care of a minor child.

¶34

This Court after hearing the argument made by counsel for the respondent at length and the reason given by the Court below finds that the excuse given by the respondent for her withdrawal from the matrimonial companionship sounds very frivolous and no explanation on her side given for not joining her husband inspite of receiving legal notice requesting her

¶35

Page 4 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

C.M.A.No.2280 of 2016

¶38

to join him.

¶39

The records also indicate that on the day when notice Ex.P.1 was issued to the respondent, the Guardian Original Petition as well as Maintenance Case was not even numbered. It is only after sending reply, she has got her Maintenance Case and Guardian Original Petition numbered.

¶40

Thus, it is very clear that she had no intention to rejoin her husband even when notice was issued in the year 2010. At least, she should have shown some sign of intention to join her husband and minor child after the dismissal of the divorce petition. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to show that she had made any attempt for reunion. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Guardian Original Petition filed by the respondent got dismissed.

¶41

Taking into consideration the materials placed cumulatively this Court finds that the order of the Family Court, Coimbatore is to be interfered with and accordingly, the same is set aside. The marriage that was solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 01.02.1998 stands dissolved.

¶42

_______________ Page 5 of 6_

¶43

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

¶44

C.M.A.No.2280 of 2016

¶45

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.

¶46