Madras High Court
Santhi Sundararajan vs P.S.Aswini Rama Priya on 4 February, 2021
C.M.S.A.No.3 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 04.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.S.A.No.3 of 2012
Santhi Sundararajan .. Appellant
Versus
1.P.S.Aswini Rama Priya
2.P.S.Harini
3.N.Amirthavalli .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree of the learned
Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.2) Gobichettipalayam, in
C.M.A.No.56 of 2010 dated 24.08.2011, confirming the fair and final order
of the learned Subordinate Judge of Gobichettipalayam in H.M.O.P.No.91
of 2008 dated 30.06.2010.
For Appellant : Mr. S. Kathamalai Kumaran
For Respondents : Mrs. D. Sathya, for RR1 & 2
Mr. M. Narayanaswamy, for R3
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.No.3 of 2012
JUDGMENT
The deceased husband Mr.P.N.Sundararajan, filed
H.M.O.P.No.91/2008 for dissolution of marriage. The marriage between the
appellant as well as the deceased Sundararajan was solemnised on
01.09.1985, as per hindu rites and customs. The petition for divorce was
allowed by the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam on 30.06.2010. The
appellant/wife filed C.M.A.No.56/2010 and the Additional District Court
(FTC-2), Gobichettipalayam, confirmed the judgment and decree passed in
H.M.O.P.No.91/2008 on 24.08.2011. The concurring judgments passed by
the Sub Court as well as the District Court is challenge in the present civil
miscellaneous second appeal.
2. Even before filing C.M.A.No.56/2010 and after the judgment
in H.M.O.P., husband Mr.P.N.Soundararajan died. The legal heirs of
Soundararajan were impleaded in the interest of family and further
considering the fact that the husband died, the parties have arrived a
compromise and the memo of compromise is filed before this Court which
reads as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.No.3 of 2012
“1. The respondents 1 and 2 in the above
appeal are daughters of the appellant. The 3rd
respondent is the mother-in-law of the appellant. The
petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 are living together.
2. The husband of the appellant namely late
Sundararajan filed a petition H.M.O.P. 91/2008 on the
file of Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam against the
appellant for divorce on the ground of cruelty and
desertion. The same was contested.
3. The trial Court by judgment and decree
dated 30.06.2010 allowed the petition for divorce. The
appeal C.M.A.No.56/2010 was also dismissed.
Sundararajan died after the judgment and prior to the
filing of C.M.S.A.No.3/2012 Sundararajan left behing
him his daughters the respondents 1 and 2 herein and the
3rd respondent who is his mother as his heirs. Hence, in
C.M.S.A.3/2012 they were added as the respondents.
Even after the 1st appellate Court confirmed the decree of
divorce the respondents were treating the appellant only
as the wife of Sundararajan ignoring the decree of
divorce.
4. The appellant and respondents 1 to 3 herein
have now no dispute among themselves to be decided.
They continue to live as one family. In the interest of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.No.3 of 2012
family, this memo of compromise is entered into between
the appellant and respondents 1 to 3 herein. The
respondents 1 to 3 in the above appeal have no objection
for the above appeal to be allowed. In the interest of
family, this petition is filed to record the compromise
between the parties. The respondents 1 to 3 have no
objection for the above appeal to be allowed and the
Decree of Divorce between the appellant and her
deceased husband to be set aside.
5. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to record this memo of compromise and
thus render justice.”
3. The learned counsel for the third respondent mother of
Soundararajan raised an objection that certain other disputes with reference
to the properties are yet to be resolved, this Court is of the considered
opinion that those property issues are unconnected with the present appeal,
as the present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in
a matrimonial dispute under the Hindu Marriage Act. In fact, the decree of
divorce was granted between the husband and wife and the said divorce was
confirmed by the First Appellate Court. This being the nature of dispute in
this litigation, the other disputes in connection with the properties are no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.No.3 of 2012
way connected in the present appeal and the parties are at liberty to resolve
the dispute in the manner known to law.
4. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the memo of
compromise is to be taken into account, as the parties are not interested in
pursuing the matrimonial dispute between the deceased husband and the
appellant-wife. Thus, they have agreed to arrive at a conclusion that the
order is to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed. This apart, the
mother-in-law in a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife is an
unnecessary party. However, as a matter of course, all the legal heirs are
impleaded in the matrimonial dispute. This being the factum, based on the
compromise memo filed as above, the judgment and decree dated
24.08.2011 passed in C.M.A.No.56/2010 confirming the judgment and
decree dated 30.06.2010 passed in H.M.O.P.No.91/2008 are set aside and
C.M.S.A.No.3/2012 is allowed. No costs.
04.02.2021
Index: Yes/ No
AT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.No.3 of 2012
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AT
To
1.The Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.2),
Gobichettipalayam
2.The Subordinate Judge,
Gobichettipalayam.
C.M.S.A.No.3 of 2012
04.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
