P.M.Meganathan vs P.Padma
2021 Latest Caselaw 3048 Mad

                                                                               C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2017


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 09.02.2021

                                                       CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2017
                                                         and
                                                C.M.P.No.10413 of 2017

                     P.M.Meganathan                                             ..Appellant
                                                          Vs.
                     P.Padma                                                   ..Respondent

                     Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 218 of
                     the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 100 of C.P.C., against
                     the Judgment and Decree passed in C.M.A.No.8 of 2011 dated
                     23.02.2017 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur
                     confirming the judgment and decree passed in H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2005
                     dated 18.01.2010 on the file of Sub Court, Thiruvallur.


                                      For Appellant    : Mr.B.Singaravelu

                                      For Respondent : Mr.R.Selvakumar


                                                      JUDGMENT

The present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal on hand is

preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed in C.M.A.No.8 of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2017

2011 dated 23.02.2017 on the file of the Principal District Court,

Thiruvallur confirming the judgment and decree passed in

H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2005 dated 18.01.2010 on the file of Sub Court,

Thiruvallur.

2.The substantial questions of law raised by the appellant are as

follows:

a)Whether the first Appellate Court was right to the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant, when the respondent had given evidence before the trial Court contrary to the evidence to the evidence given in the criminal proceedings.

b)The first Appellate Court has committed serious error of law to the facts and circumstances of the case by dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant without adducing proper reasons and blindly followed the trail court judgment and decree.

c)Whether the judgment and decree of the Court is correct in dismissing the petition for Divorce not on merits.

d)Whether the Court below is correct in rejecting the plea of the Desertion and non consummation of marriage even though the respondent has pleaded that she is willing to live with the appellant, but so far complied with the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2017

3.All the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant are

not only vague but relatable to the facts and circumstances of the case

and it is pertinent to note that the facts, circumstances and documents

are adjudicated both by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. In

the absence of any such evidences, the second appeal cannot be

entertained with reference to Section 100 of C.P.C. Thus, the Civil

Miscellaneous second appeal is not entertainable.

4.The facts in nutshell are that the appellant/husband filed a

petition in H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2005 for dissolution of marriage. The

marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on

08.06.1977 as per the Hindu Rights and Customs. Interestingly, the

appellant is now aged about 70 years and respondent is aged about 63

years. The H.M.O.P., contested between the parties. Particularly

adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences

and arrived a conclusion that the appellant/husband is not entitled for

the decree of divorce and accordingly, dismissed the petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2017

5.The Trial Court made a finding that the allegations of cruelty

were not established with reference to the evidences and documents. The

appellant/husband approached the First Appellate Court in C.M.A.No.8

of 2011. The First Appellate Court considered the issues with reference

to the documents and evidences as well as based on the findings of the

Trial Court. The First Appellate Court made a finding, which reads as

under:

“15/vjph;nky;KiwaPll; hsh; jdJ rhl;rpaj;jpy.; jhd; K:d;W tUl fhyk;

jdJ fztuhd nky;KiwaPl;lhsUld; xd;whf FLk;gk; elj;jpajhft[k;

j';fSf;Fs; jhk;gj;jpa cwt[ ,Ue;jJ vd;Wk; kDjhuh; jhd; jd;id

moj;J Juj;jptpl;lhh; vd;Wk;. me;j K:d;W tUlj;jpy; FHe;ij

gpwf;ftpy;iy vd;Wk; jhd; jhk;gj;jpa cwt[f;F jFjpaw;wth; vd;W

brhd;dhy; mJ rhpay;y vd;Wk;. jhk;gj;jpa cwt[ Vw;gltpy;iy vd;W

brhd;dhy; mij kWg;gjhft[k; jdJ btl;fj;ija[k; khdj;ija[k; tplL ;

j';fSf;Fs; jhk;gj;jpa cwt[ ,Ue;jJ jhd; jhk;gj;jpa cwt[f;F

jFjpahdthh; vd;W btspg;gilahf rhl;rpak; mspj;Js;s epiyapy;.

jhk;gj;jpa cwt[f;F jFjpahd jdJ kidtpa[ld; jhk;gj;a cwtpy; <Lgl

Koahj mst[f;F jdJ cly; typid kdtypik ,y;iy vd;nwh.

<Lgl Koahj mst[f;F jhd; neha;tha;gl;L tpl;ljhfnth

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2017

nky;KiwaPl;lhsh; jug;g[ tHf;F ,y;yhj epiyapy;. nky;KiwaPl;lhsUf;Fk;

rhe;jpf;Fk; 4 gps;isfs; gpwe;Js;s epiyapy; nky;KiwaPl;lhsh; jug;gpy;

bgaustpy; ,UtUf;Fkpilna jhk;gj;a cwt[ Vw;gltpy;iy vd;W

bgaustpy; cz;ikf;F g[wk;ghf tHf;fpw;fhf thjk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ

vd;W mwpa[k; epiyapy;/

16/nky;KiwaPl;lhsUf;F rhe;jpa[ldhd ,y;thH;f;iff;F

vjph;kDjhuh; ,ila{whf ,Ug;gjhYk; jw;nghJ jdJ Mrphpah;

gzpapypUe;J Xa;t[ bgWk; epiyapy; cs;sjhy; jhd; jdJ Xa;t[ fhy

gzgad;fis vjph;nky;KiwaPl;lhsh; bgw;Wtplf;TlhJ vd;w

cs;nehf;fj;Jld; bgha;ahd jfty;fSld; vjph;kDjhuhplkpUe;J

tpthfuj;J bgw ,k;kDit fhyk; fle;J jhf;fy; bra;Js;sjhf thjpl;l

vjph;nky;KiwaPl;lhshpd; fw;wwpe;j tHf;Fiu"hpd; thjk; Vw;g[ilajhfnt

cs;sJ.

17/tprhuiz epjpkd;wKk; nky;KiwaPl;lhsh;

vjph;nky;KiwaPl;lhsiu jFe;j fhuz';fs; vJt[kpd;wp nky;KiwaPl;lhsh;

jdJ kidtpahd vjph;nky;KiwaPl;lhsiu fle;j 28 Mz;Lfshf

jdpna tpyfp ntW xU bgz;zhd rhe;jpa[ld; fztd; kidtpahf

FLk;gk; elj;jp FHe;ijfs; bgw;Ws;s epiyapy;. jw;nghJ cs;nehf;fj;Jld;

vt;tpj rl;lg;goahd MjhuKk; ,d;wp vjph;nky;KiwaPl;lhsh;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2017

,y;thH;f;iff;F jFjpaw;wth; vd;W tpthfuj;J nfhhp jhf;fy; bra;Js;s

,k;kD rl;lg;go Vw;g[ilajy;y vd;W mwpa[k; epiyapy;. tprhuiz

ePjpkd;wk; nky;KiwaPl;lhshpd; kDit js;Sgo bra;J cj;jut[

gpwg;gpj;Js;sjpy; jiyapLtjw;F ,k;nky;KiwaPl;L ePjpkd;wj;jpy; vt;tpj

Kfhe;jpuKk; ,y;iy vd;W jPh;khdpj;J tprhuiz ePjpkd;wk; gpwg;gpj;j

cj;juit kWghprPyid bra;a ntz;oa mtrpak; ,y;iy vd;Wk;.

tprhuiz ePjpkd;wk; gpwg;gpj;j cj;jut[ kw;Wk; cj;juthiz cWjp

bra;aj;jf;fJ vd;W Kot[ jPh;khdpf;fg;gLfpwJ/”

6.The above findings of the First Appellate Court reveals that the

appellant has filed a petition and the allegations against the wife has not

been established before the Trial Court and before the First Appellate

Court. In view of the fact that the appellant has not raised any acceptable

question of law and even on merits the appellant had not established the

allegations of marriage based on any evidence.

7.Therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider the appeal.

Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2017 passed in

C.M.A.No.8 of 2011 confirming the judgment and decree dated

18.01.2010 passed in H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2005 stands confirmed and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2017

C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2017 stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

09.02.2021

Pns

Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order

To

1.The Principal District Court, Thiruvallur.

2.The Sub Court, Thiruvallur.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2017

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Pns

C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2017

09.02.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/