Madras High Court
S.Padma vs T.P.Ravichandran on 3 February, 2021
C.M.S.A.No.5 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.S.A.No.5 of 2008
S.Padma
... Appellant
Vs.
T.P.Ravichandran
.. Respondent
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 28 (1)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 r/w.100 C.P.C., against the order in
C.M.A.No.21 of 2005 dated 31.07.2007 by the learned Additional
District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.2), Salem, reversing the judgment
in H.M.O.P.No.13 of 2002 dated 07.01.2005 by the learned Subordinate
Judge at Mettur.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Selvarajan
For Respondent : Mr.P.Jagadeesan
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.No.5 of 2008
JUDGMENT
The order passed in C.M.A.No.21 of 2005 dated 31.07.2007, is
under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous second appeal.
2. At the time of admitting the appeal, no question of law is
framed. The substantial question of law raised in the grounds for appeal
by the appellant is whether the Courts below rightly held that the
appellant had caused cruelty against the respondent. Whether the Courts
below has rightly held that the respondent had proved the adultery
committed by the appellant. Whether the Court below come to a
conclusion that the appellant and the respondent had lived happily or
not. Whether the Court below rightly come to a conclusion that the
respondent had proved the case for divorce.
3. The facts in nutshell reveals that the respondent husband filed
H.M.O.P.No.13 of 2002, seeking dissolution of marriage. The Trial
Court dismissed the divorce petition. The respondent husband filed
C.M.A.No.21 of 2005 and the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.No.5 of 2008
and granted dissolution of marriage. The decree of divorce granted in
the year 2007 is continued.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent made a submission that
the appellant and the respondent are separately living for the past more
than 24 years. Thus, there is an irretrievable break down of marriage
which is also a reason for the purpose of confirming the decree of
divorce. This apart, the respondent is also aged about more than 56
years.
5. Beyond all these reasons, the appellant has not raised any
substantial question of law which is mandatory under Section 100 of
C.P.C. The substantial question of law raised are related to the factual
aspects and those facts were already adjudicated both by the Trial Court
as well as the First Appellate Court. The facts regarding the grounds for
divorce were elaborately adjudicated by the Trial Court as well as the
First Appellate Court and therefore, in the absence of any substantial
question of law which is mandatory, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.No.5 of 2008
Court. Further, the appellant and the respondent are living separately for
more than 25 years.
6. Under these circumstances, the appeal deserves no merit and
consideration. Consequently the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2007
passed in C.M.A.No.21 of 2005 stands confirmed and C.M.S.A.No.5 of
2008 stands dismissed. No costs.
03.02.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
gsk
To
1.The learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.2).
Salem.
2.The learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.No.5 of 2008
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
gsk
C.M.S.A.No.5 of 2008
03.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
