Madras High Court dismisses appeal against divorce decree; false dowry harassment and bigamy allegations by wife amount to mental cruelty; husband's undertaking for children's expenses enforced.
Divorce decree upheld; appeal dismissed. Respondent directed to abide by undertaking to bear children's educational and marriage expenses. ¶¶15-16
The trial judge correctly assessed the evidence and concluded that the appellant indulged in character assassination and made false allegations of dowry harassment and bigamy against the respondent and his family members. ¶¶11
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 02.12.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 08 .12.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
CMA No. 98 of 2017 And
C.M.P.No. 767 of 2017
Vijayalakshmi
W/o. Mariappan & D/o. Chinnaraj
... Respondent/Appellant
Vs
Mariappan S/o. Chinnasamy
...Petitioner/Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of Family Courts Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2016 in FCHMOP No. 60 of 2015 on the file of Family Court, Dharmapuri.
2 For Appellant : Mr. S.Karthikeyan for Mr.K.V.Sanjeev Kumar For Respondent : Mr. C.Kulanthaivel
J U D G M E N T
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J . )
The respondent in FCHMOP No. 60 of 2015 on the file of Family Court at Dharmapuri is the appellant herein.
had stated that the appellant herein was rude and often quarrelled and left
3
the matrimonial home. He had also filed M.O.P.No. 17 of 2009 before the Sub Court at Harur for restitution of conjugal right, which was decreed but still the appellant herein did not respond. Thereafter, the petition was filed again before the Sub Court at Harur, seeking divorce. The appellant had filed M.O.P.No. 31 of 2012 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It had been stated that they then reconciled and stay together but again differences arose. The appellant had also filed a complaint before the All Women Police Station at Dharmapuri claiming harassment for divorce. She also filed another case under the Domestic Violence Act. It was under those circumstances that the petition was filed seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty.
4
examined another witness as PW-2. The appellant examined herself as RW-
of the evidence adduced had noted that the respondent had filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the Sub Court at Harur and had obtained an exparte decree. Since the appellant did not come to live with him, the respondent had filed another petition before the Sub Court at Harur seeking divorce. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application seeking restitution of conjugal rights at Sub Court at Dharmapuri. A compromise was effected between the parties and they began to live together. Again
5
problems had arisen and it was contended by the appellant that when she questioned, the conduct of the respondent, he attempted to kill her. The learned Trial Judge further noted that after many years after marriage, a complaint for dowry harassment was made on 01.08.2012 on the basis of which FIR in Crime No. 20 of 2012 was regisgtered as evidenced by Ex.P2. Thereafter, a petition was filed under the Domestic Violence Act, a copy of which was marked as Ex.P-5. The trial Court further noted that no explanation had been given by the appellant for arraying all the family members as accused. It was held that the criminal complaint was a contrived after thought to ensure that the respondent and his family members are put in jail. It was further held that the appellant had indulged in character assassination. Expressing those views, the petition seeking divorce was allowed and the marriage was dissolved. Challenging that particular Judgment and Decree, the present Appeal had been filed.
counsel for the respondent.
6
relationship on 10.02.2006. Two children were born to them. However, they appear to have an affinity to quarrell with each other. It is contended that the appellant left the matrimonial house. The respondent herein then filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Ex.P-1 was the decree and Judgment in H.M.O.P.No. 17 of 2009 by which a decree of restitution of conjugal rights was granted in favour of the respondent.
7
complaint was a contrived after thought. The respondent was acquitted of all charges including the charge under Section 494 IPC.
“2. I submit that I have been taking care all along the entire educational expenses for both of my daughters from L.K.G onwards and i have produced and marked all the original school fee receipts as a documents on my behalf in maintenance case in M.C.No. 8 of 2022 on the
8
file of the Hon'ble District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pennegaram, Dharmapuri and also I have submitted the copy of those bills by way of additional typeset in the above appeal.
3. I submit that I am also continuously depositing/saving the amount in the post office under the scheme of “SUGANYA SAMRITI YOJANA” as well as paying premium for the “LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION” policy for both my daughters for their future educational and marriage expenses. The copies of those savings and LIC premium receipts have also been produced in the additional typeset of papers in the above appeal.
4. I submit that I hereby undertake to continue and to bear the reasonable future education expenses and reasonable marriage expenses of both my daughters subject to my maximum capacity. The above said undertaking for both reasonable future education and reasonable marriage expenses will also meet from the above savings of postal “SUGANYA SAMRITI YOJANA” scheme and as well as the maturity of the LIC policy for which I will continue to pay till its maturity and marriage. I further submit that the above such
9
undertaking will also include and subject to the future maintenance amount if any ordered in the maintenance case in M.C.No. 8 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Pennegaram, Dharmapuri. I am also hereby reserve m y right to challenge the exorbitant maintenance if any ordered in M.C.No. 8 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pennegaram, Dharmapuri.”
the respondent had contracted a second marriage would show that the appellant had unfortunately indulged herself in raising allegations which were not warranted and which had no basis of any truth in them. The respondent and all the other accused had been acquitted of all charges including the allegation under Section 494 IPC. The parties have also been living separately for more than a decade as on date. It is to be further noted that even in the earlier round of litigation when compromise had been effected between the parties, the appellant had again left the matrimonial house and had thereafter indulged herself in lodging complaints of dowry harassment and of contracting second marriage against the respondent.
10
and bear all other expenses of the two children, will necessarily have to be
given due credence to this Court. The allegations of cruelty had been established by the very fact that the appellant had indulged in lodging a false complaint against the respondent of dowry harassment and contractive a second marriage.
[C.V.K., J.] [K.B., J.]
08.12.2025
Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No To:
Family Court, Dharmapuri.
11
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
vsg
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
CMA No. 98 of 2017 And C.M.P.No. 767 of 2017
08.12.2025
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court correctly granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty based on the appellant's conduct.¶¶11, ¶14-15
The appellant's conduct in lodging false criminal complaints of dowry harassment and alleging the respondent contracted a second marriage constitutes mental cruelty, which is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.ratio¶¶13-14
Whether the appellant's false allegations of dowry harassment and bigamy constitute mental cruelty justifying divorce.¶¶13-14
4 provisions across 4 enactments
How this case reached the court
Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2016 in FCHMOP No. 60 of 2015 on the file of Family Court, Dharmapuri¶¶15, ¶22
Family Court, Dharmapuri · 28.09.2016
M.O.P.No. 17 of 2009 before Sub Court at Harur for restitution of conjugal rights, decreed ex parte¶¶23-27
H.M.O.P.No. 60 of 2012 before Sub Court at Harur seeking divorce¶¶23-27
M.O.P.No. 31 of 2012 before Sub Court at Dharmapuri seeking restitution of conjugal rights; compromise effected¶¶23-27, ¶36-38
Complaint at All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri; FIR Crime No. 20 of 2012 registered (Ex.P-2)¶¶31-33, ¶36-38
Petition under Domestic Violence Act (Ex.P-5); M.C.No. 17 of 2012 before Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri (Ex.P-6)¶¶31-33, ¶36-38
Maintenance case M.C.No. 8 of 2022 pending before District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pennegaram, Dharmapuri¶¶52-60
C.V.KARTHIKEYANauthor¶¶5-6, ¶20
K.KUMARESH BABUmember¶¶5-6
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
