Madras High Court
K.Senthil Kumar vs Hemalatha on 10 March, 2021
C.M.S.A.Nos.39 & 40 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.S.A.Nos.39 & 40 of 2021
K.Senthil Kumar ..Appellant in both CMSAs
Vs.
Hemalatha ..Respondent in both CMSAs
Prayer in C.M.S.A.No.39 of 2021 : Civil Miscellaneous Second
Appeal filed under Section 43 Rule 1 r/w under Section 100 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, against the Common Judgment and Decree in
C.M.A.No.1 of 2019 dated 23.10.2019 on the file of the 1st Additional
District Judge, Tiruvallur, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated
28.11.2018 made in H.M.O.P.No.104 of 2014 on the file of Sub-Court,
Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.
Prayer in C.M.S.A.No.40 of 2021 : Civil Miscellaneous Second
Appeal filed under Section 43 Rule 1 r/w under Section 100 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, against the Common Judgment and Decree in
C.M.A.No.2 of 2019 dated 23.10.2019 on the file of the 1st Additional
District Judge, Tiruvallur, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated
28.11.2018 made in H.M.O.P.No.135 of 2014 on the file of Sub-Court,
Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar
[in both cases]
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.Nos.39 & 40 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals are filed against the
Common Judgment and Decree in C.M.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2019 dated
23.10.2019 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur, in
confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 28.11.2018 made in
H.M.O.P.Nos.104 & 135 of 2014 on the file of Sub-Court, Ponneri,
Tiruvallur District.
2. The appellant/husband filed a petition for Dissolution of
marriage in H.M.O.P.No.104 of 2014 before the Sub Court, Ponenri.
The respondent/wife filed a petition for Restitution of conjugal rights in
H.M.O.P.No.135 of 2014 before the Sub Court, Ponneri.
3. Both the petitions were adjudicated and the petition filed by the
appellant for divorce was dismissed and the restitution petition was
ordered, against which, two appeals were filed before the I Additional
District Judge, Tiruvallur, in C.M.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2019. The I
Additional District Judge also adjudicated the issues and dismissed the
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.Nos.39 & 40 of 2021
petition filed by the appellant, confirming the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court. Challenging the concurrent judgment, the
present Second Appeals are filed.
4. Both the Courts have elaborately adjudicated the facts,
documents and evidences and those facts were adjudicated before the
trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court cannot be interfered with.
The Substantial Question of law as raised in the present appeals reads as
under:
“i) Whether the Courts below the right in dismissing
the HMOP when the substantial was made out by the
Appellant/Husband for granting divorce.
ii) Whether the Courts below right in dismissing the
H.M.O.P. From divorce despite the parties living
separately for than a period on 5 years and the
relationship broke down drastically.
iii) Whether the Husband/Appellant were
established that the respondent/wife have earned annually
on the husband and divorce of dismissing can be
granted?”
5. Perusal of the above substantial questions of law shows that all
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.Nos.39 & 40 of 2021
relatable to facts and the appellant could not able to raise any substantial
question of law, warranting further interference by this Court in the
present Second Appeals. Mere framing of Substantial question of law is
insufficient. Questions of law framed must be capable of further
adjudication by the High Court, more specifically, under Section 100 of
C.P.C.
6. In the present cases, the questions of law raised are not worthy
for the purpose of further adjudication of facts and circumstances as
well as the evidences, which were already adjudicated elaborately by the
trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. In view
of the fact that the appellant could not able to raise any acceptable
substantial question of law, which is mandatory, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the appeals.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals in
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.Nos.39 & 40 of 2021
C.M.S.A.Nos.39 & 40 of 2021 stand dismissed. No costs.
10.03.2021
kak
Index: Yes/No
To
1.The I Additional District Judge,
Tiruvallur.
2. The Judge,
Sub Court,
Ponneri,
Thiruvallur District.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.Nos.39 & 40 of 2021
kak
C.M.S.A.Nos.39 & 40 of 2021
10.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
