Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2323 Mad
Judgement Date : 2 February, 2021
CMSA No.38 of 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02-02-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
CMSA No.38 of 2001
S.Muthiayyan .. Appellant
vs.
Sundara Rajeswari .. Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is preferred under Section
28 of Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2000 made in CMA
No.250 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge,
Nagapattinam, confirming the order and decree dated 22.06.1999 made in
HMOP No.46 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate
Judge, Nagapattinam.
For Appellant : Mr.K.R.Rameshkumar
For Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMSA No.38 of 2001
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful husband in a petition for dissolution of marriage
has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal.
2. The appellant filed HMOP for divorce, which was dismissed by
the Trial Court, so also by the first Appellate Court.
3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that both the appellant
and the respondent are not living together and they are living separately for
many number of years.
4. In view of the fact that there is no scope for reunion and
resumption of matrimonial home, no further adjudication needs to be
entertained. Even otherwise, it is stated that the appellant is aged about
more than 60 years and both the Courts have declined to grant dissolution of
marriage.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMSA No.38 of 2001
5. Beyond the fact that the spouses are living separately for long
years, the substantial question of law raised in the present Civil
Miscellaneous Second Appeal relates to the facts, which cannot be
construed as a substantial question of law, so as to adjudicate the present
Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal on hand and on both these grounds, the
Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal deserves to be rejected.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made a
submission that long separation is also a ground for dissolution of marriage.
However, those factual aspects cannot be adjudicated in the present Civil
Miscellaneous Second Appeal, as the substantial questions of law raised are
relatable to the factual matrix of the case.
7. Thus, this Court is not inclined to consider those factual
aspects and the spouses are living separately may be a good ground and the
same cannot be considered at this length of time for the purpose of grant of
dissolution of marriage, as the divorce petition filed by the husband was
dismissed by the Trial Court as well as by the first Appellate Court. Thus,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMSA No.38 of 2001
CMSA No.38 of 2001 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as
to costs.
02-02-2021 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order. Internet : Yes/No.
Index: Yes/No.
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMSA No.38 of 2001
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam.
2.The Principal Sub Judge, Nagapattinam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMSA No.38 of 2001
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
C.M.S.A.No.38 of 2001
02-02-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!