High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 23.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 17.09.2025 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMARandTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABALCMA.No.1971 of 2025and CMP.Nos.17239 & 17241 of 2025R.Deepa ... Appellant/RespondentVs.N. Unnikrishnan ... Respondents/PetitionerPRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, as against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2025 made in HMOP.No.1343 of 2014 on the file of the 5th Additional Family Court, Chennai.For Appellant: Ms.B.D.Sumana For Respondent: Ms.R.Thenmozhi J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was made by P.DHANABAL.,J)This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the fair and decreetal order passed by the V Additional Family Court, Chennai, in HMOP.No.1343 of 2014, wherein, the respondent herein filed a petition seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis solemnized on 27.11.2002 at Chennai, Singarathottam and registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Royapuram, Chennai and the same was allowed.2. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the wife/appellant. Before the Family Court, the respondent/husband has filed a petition seeking divorce alleging that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 27.11.2002 at Arulmigu Muthumariamman temple, Singarathottam, Chennai as per the Hindu rites and customs and the same was registered in the Sub-registrar Office, Royapuram, Chennai. Due to wedlock, a male child was born on 06.08.2003. The appellant/wife wanted to live extreme lavish life for which the respondent/husband was forced to extremely work hard to fulfill her demands. In the year 2008, the appellant was interested in working with marketing company called 'Herbal life'. She demanded to invest Rs.2 lakhs in the said Company and the same was also invested. However, she lost Rs.5-6 lakhs in the said business. She used to receive calls at hard hours at night and failed to evince interest in the respondent and their son. Also the appellant/wife developed a relationship with other unmarried neighbour and often she went to his house and lend him laptop, bike and groceries. The 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent/husband found that the appellant/wife was sending messages to her neighbour and the same was questioned by him, but she abused him and did not show any interest towards him. The appellant/wife refused to have matrimonial relationship with the respondent and also threatened to transfer his assets in her name. Thereafter, the respondent/husband went to USA and the appellant/wife stayed in Hyderabad. Thereafter she refused to live with the respondent/husband. The respondent thereby sent a legal notice to settle the issue amicably and in view of mutual consent. The appellant/wife filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in MC.No.348 of 2013. Therefore, the appellant/wife caused cruelty to the respondent/husband and thereby filed a petition seeking divorce.3. The appellant/wife filed a counter stating that the marriage between the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband is a love marriage. The respondent/husband accepted the marriage only because the appellant/wife is the daughter of a business man. After the delivery of the child, the respondent/husband and his mother had quarrelled with the appellant's mother and left the hospital even without informing the appellant/wife. The respondent/husband wanted to separate the appellant/wife from her parents 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis so he applied for job out of Chennai and found a job in Hyderabad. There was no loss in the business and the appellant/wife had lot of clients and made good profits. The father of the appellant/wife also partially contributed for the purchase of flat at Manasarovar Heights, Secunderabad and the same was registered in their joint names. The respondent/husband was living in adultery so he made false allegations against the appellant/wife. He was involved in extra marital affair and in order to hide the same, he often quarrelled with the appellant/wife and avoided her and sleep in a separate room. The respondent/husband also made false allegations in order to defame her name. He only harassed the appellant/wife. The respondent/husband was living in adultery travelling with women of his choice in business class and never bothered to take his wife or son anywhere. The respondent/husband only forced the appellant/wife to leave the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the appellant/wife filed a petition for maintenance in MC.No.348 of 2013 already O.P.No. 1343 of 2014 was filed and examined by the Family Court, Chennai and thereafter, a judgment was pronounced thereafter in the appeal, the matter has been remanded back to let in additional evidence.4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court framed points for consideration that whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Before the Family Court, on the side of the appellant/wife one witness was examined and 21 exhibits were marked. On the side of the respondent/husband, one witness was examined and 9 exhibits were marked. After perusing and analyzing the oral and documentary evidences, the Family Court has allowed the petition and the marriage between the appellant/wife and respondent/husband solemnized on 27.11.2002 was dissolved by granting divorce on the ground of cruelty. 5. Now challenging the said fair and decreetal order, the appellant/wife filed this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife would submit that the respondent/husband filed petition for divorce as against the appellant/wife by levelling false allegations and there is no dispute in respect of relationship between the parties and one son born to them. In order to prove the alleged cruelty pleaded by the respondent/husband, no sufficient evidence was adduced, whereas the appellant/wife categorically deposed 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis about the cruelty caused by her husband. However, the trial court without considering the evidences adduced by the parties on proper appreciation, allowed the petition as if the ground of cruelty was proved.7. The family court failed to consider and appreciate the oral evidences as well as the Exs.R1 to R21 and absolutely there are no evidences to prove the alleged cruelty. The family court failed to consider the facts properly and granted divorce erroneously. With regard to grant of permanent alimony, the appellant/wife is expressing her grievance that the interim maintenance already ordered is not sufficient to meet out her expenses. The appellant/wife is always ready and willing to live with the respondent/husband. But the same was not considered by the family court and therefore, fair and decreetal order passed by the Family Court is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband would submit that the respondent filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty caused by the appellant/wife. Already she filed a petition for maintenance and the same was allowed and the maintenance is being paid without any 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis arrears. The appellant/wife caused cruelty and both are living separately from 12.10.2012 and there is no possibility for re-union and the appellant/wife also initiated so many legal proceedings as against the respondent/husband. It shows that she is not ready to live with the respondent and therefore, the Family Court correctly came to the conclusion that there is no possibility for reunion as there is a long period of continuous separation and the matrimonial bond is beyond repair and the same amounts to cruelty and hence the Family Court granted divorce. Therefore, the fair and decreetal order passed by the Family Court is in order and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. This court head both sides and perused the records.10. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side and perusing the records, the point for determination in this appeal is whether the respondent is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty. 11. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the marriage between the 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis parties was solemnized on 27.11.2002 as per the Hindu rites and customs and thereby a male child was born to them on 06.08.2003. While so, the respondent/husband filed a petition before the Family Court for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. According to the respondent/husband, the appellant/wife caused cruelty and they were separated from 12.10.2012 and living separately. Though both the parties adduced evidences to support their contention and marked evidences, the trial court granted divorce on the ground of cruelty by holding that the parties are living separately from 12.10.2012. Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair and the marriage becomes a fiction though separated by the legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; On the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such a like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty” by referring the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCR 428 . 12. There is no dispute that the parties were separated from 12.10.2012 onwards and for more than 12 years they are unable to re-unite. 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis The petition was filed on the ground of cruelty and both the parties made allegations of adultery against each other and they are living separately from the year 2012. Therefore there is no possibility for reunion. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ' Rakesh Raman Vs.Smt. Kavita on 26.04.2023 wherein the Supreme Court held that “where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitationi with multiple court cases between the parties, then continuation of such a 'marriage' would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other” 13. Therefore, the Family Court granted divorce on the ground of cruelty due to long separation and the same is in order. Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the family court. However, the family court failed to consider the permanent alimony and it is an admitted fact that the male child was born to them and he is with the appellant wife and therefore already maintenance was also awarded and the same is being paid to the appellant /wife and her son. Therefore, in order to put an end to 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the lis between the parties, it is appropriate to direct the respondent/husband to pay permanent alimony and maintenance to the appellant/wife.14. Though there is no evidence about the financial status of the parties, already the respondent is paying maintenance to the appellant and he is working in the private company and earning a reasonable salary and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to direct the respondent/husband to pay permanent alimony and maintenance to the appellant/wife, thereby quantified the permanent alimony of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only)15. In view of the above, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the order passed by the family court in respect of granting divorce on the ground of cruelty is confirmed and this court passes decree directing the respondent/husband to pay Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) towards permanent alimony and maintenance to the appellant, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount will carry 9% interest from the date of this judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitions are closed. [ R.S.K.,J.] [P.D.B.,J] 17.09.2025Index : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral citation: Yes/NogvR.SURESH KUMAR.,JandP.DHANABAL.,JTo1.The 5th Additional Family Court, Chennai.2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.Pre-delivery Judgment made in CMA.No.1971 of 2025 and CMP.Nos.17239 & 17241 of 202511/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17.09.202512/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 23.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 17.09.2025 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMARandTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABALCMA.No.1971 of 2025and CMP.Nos.17239 & 17241 of 2025R.Deepa ... Appellant/RespondentVs.N. Unnikrishnan ... Respondents/PetitionerPRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, as against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2025 made in HMOP.No.1343 of 2014 on the file of the 5th Additional Family Court, Chennai.For Appellant: Ms.B.D.Sumana For Respondent: Ms.R.Thenmozhi J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was made by P.DHANABAL.,J)This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the fair and decreetal order passed by the V Additional Family Court, Chennai, in HMOP.No.1343 of 2014, wherein, the respondent herein filed a petition seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis solemnized on 27.11.2002 at Chennai, Singarathottam and registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Royapuram, Chennai and the same was allowed.2. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the wife/appellant. Before the Family Court, the respondent/husband has filed a petition seeking divorce alleging that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 27.11.2002 at Arulmigu Muthumariamman temple, Singarathottam, Chennai as per the Hindu rites and customs and the same was registered in the Sub-registrar Office, Royapuram, Chennai. Due to wedlock, a male child was born on 06.08.2003. The appellant/wife wanted to live extreme lavish life for which the respondent/husband was forced to extremely work hard to fulfill her demands. In the year 2008, the appellant was interested in working with marketing company called 'Herbal life'. She demanded to invest Rs.2 lakhs in the said Company and the same was also invested. However, she lost Rs.5-6 lakhs in the said business. She used to receive calls at hard hours at night and failed to evince interest in the respondent and their son. Also the appellant/wife developed a relationship with other unmarried neighbour and often she went to his house and lend him laptop, bike and groceries. The 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent/husband found that the appellant/wife was sending messages to her neighbour and the same was questioned by him, but she abused him and did not show any interest towards him. The appellant/wife refused to have matrimonial relationship with the respondent and also threatened to transfer his assets in her name. Thereafter, the respondent/husband went to USA and the appellant/wife stayed in Hyderabad. Thereafter she refused to live with the respondent/husband. The respondent thereby sent a legal notice to settle the issue amicably and in view of mutual consent. The appellant/wife filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in MC.No.348 of 2013. Therefore, the appellant/wife caused cruelty to the respondent/husband and thereby filed a petition seeking divorce.3. The appellant/wife filed a counter stating that the marriage between the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband is a love marriage. The respondent/husband accepted the marriage only because the appellant/wife is the daughter of a business man. After the delivery of the child, the respondent/husband and his mother had quarrelled with the appellant's mother and left the hospital even without informing the appellant/wife. The respondent/husband wanted to separate the appellant/wife from her parents 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis so he applied for job out of Chennai and found a job in Hyderabad. There was no loss in the business and the appellant/wife had lot of clients and made good profits. The father of the appellant/wife also partially contributed for the purchase of flat at Manasarovar Heights, Secunderabad and the same was registered in their joint names. The respondent/husband was living in adultery so he made false allegations against the appellant/wife. He was involved in extra marital affair and in order to hide the same, he often quarrelled with the appellant/wife and avoided her and sleep in a separate room. The respondent/husband also made false allegations in order to defame her name. He only harassed the appellant/wife. The respondent/husband was living in adultery travelling with women of his choice in business class and never bothered to take his wife or son anywhere. The respondent/husband only forced the appellant/wife to leave the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the appellant/wife filed a petition for maintenance in MC.No.348 of 2013 already O.P.No. 1343 of 2014 was filed and examined by the Family Court, Chennai and thereafter, a judgment was pronounced thereafter in the appeal, the matter has been remanded back to let in additional evidence.4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court framed points for consideration that whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Before the Family Court, on the side of the appellant/wife one witness was examined and 21 exhibits were marked. On the side of the respondent/husband, one witness was examined and 9 exhibits were marked. After perusing and analyzing the oral and documentary evidences, the Family Court has allowed the petition and the marriage between the appellant/wife and respondent/husband solemnized on 27.11.2002 was dissolved by granting divorce on the ground of cruelty. 5. Now challenging the said fair and decreetal order, the appellant/wife filed this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife would submit that the respondent/husband filed petition for divorce as against the appellant/wife by levelling false allegations and there is no dispute in respect of relationship between the parties and one son born to them. In order to prove the alleged cruelty pleaded by the respondent/husband, no sufficient evidence was adduced, whereas the appellant/wife categorically deposed 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis about the cruelty caused by her husband. However, the trial court without considering the evidences adduced by the parties on proper appreciation, allowed the petition as if the ground of cruelty was proved.7. The family court failed to consider and appreciate the oral evidences as well as the Exs.R1 to R21 and absolutely there are no evidences to prove the alleged cruelty. The family court failed to consider the facts properly and granted divorce erroneously. With regard to grant of permanent alimony, the appellant/wife is expressing her grievance that the interim maintenance already ordered is not sufficient to meet out her expenses. The appellant/wife is always ready and willing to live with the respondent/husband. But the same was not considered by the family court and therefore, fair and decreetal order passed by the Family Court is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband would submit that the respondent filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty caused by the appellant/wife. Already she filed a petition for maintenance and the same was allowed and the maintenance is being paid without any 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis arrears. The appellant/wife caused cruelty and both are living separately from 12.10.2012 and there is no possibility for re-union and the appellant/wife also initiated so many legal proceedings as against the respondent/husband. It shows that she is not ready to live with the respondent and therefore, the Family Court correctly came to the conclusion that there is no possibility for reunion as there is a long period of continuous separation and the matrimonial bond is beyond repair and the same amounts to cruelty and hence the Family Court granted divorce. Therefore, the fair and decreetal order passed by the Family Court is in order and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. This court head both sides and perused the records.10. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side and perusing the records, the point for determination in this appeal is whether the respondent is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty. 11. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the marriage between the 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis parties was solemnized on 27.11.2002 as per the Hindu rites and customs and thereby a male child was born to them on 06.08.2003. While so, the respondent/husband filed a petition before the Family Court for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. According to the respondent/husband, the appellant/wife caused cruelty and they were separated from 12.10.2012 and living separately. Though both the parties adduced evidences to support their contention and marked evidences, the trial court granted divorce on the ground of cruelty by holding that the parties are living separately from 12.10.2012. Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair and the marriage becomes a fiction though separated by the legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; On the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such a like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty” by referring the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCR 428 . 12. There is no dispute that the parties were separated from 12.10.2012 onwards and for more than 12 years they are unable to re-unite. 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis The petition was filed on the ground of cruelty and both the parties made allegations of adultery against each other and they are living separately from the year 2012. Therefore there is no possibility for reunion. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ' Rakesh Raman Vs.Smt. Kavita on 26.04.2023 wherein the Supreme Court held that “where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitationi with multiple court cases between the parties, then continuation of such a 'marriage' would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other” 13. Therefore, the Family Court granted divorce on the ground of cruelty due to long separation and the same is in order. Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the family court. However, the family court failed to consider the permanent alimony and it is an admitted fact that the male child was born to them and he is with the appellant wife and therefore already maintenance was also awarded and the same is being paid to the appellant /wife and her son. Therefore, in order to put an end to 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the lis between the parties, it is appropriate to direct the respondent/husband to pay permanent alimony and maintenance to the appellant/wife.14. Though there is no evidence about the financial status of the parties, already the respondent is paying maintenance to the appellant and he is working in the private company and earning a reasonable salary and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to direct the respondent/husband to pay permanent alimony and maintenance to the appellant/wife, thereby quantified the permanent alimony of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only)15. In view of the above, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the order passed by the family court in respect of granting divorce on the ground of cruelty is confirmed and this court passes decree directing the respondent/husband to pay Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) towards permanent alimony and maintenance to the appellant, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount will carry 9% interest from the date of this judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitions are closed. [ R.S.K.,J.] [P.D.B.,J] 17.09.2025Index : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral citation: Yes/NogvR.SURESH KUMAR.,JandP.DHANABAL.,JTo1.The 5th Additional Family Court, Chennai.2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.Pre-delivery Judgment made in CMA.No.1971 of 2025 and CMP.Nos.17239 & 17241 of 202511/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17.09.202512/12