Madras High Court
R.Jeyakumar vs J.Sindia Saroja Selva Sundari @ ... on 24 September, 2021
C.M.A.(MD)No.771 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI
C.M.A.(MD)No.771 of 2013
R.Jeyakumar ... Appellant
Vs.
J.Sindia Saroja Selva Sundari @ Sindia Saroja ... Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 155 of the
Divorce Act, against the order and decreetal order, in I.D.O.P.No.102 of 2009,
dated 22.01.2011, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Poornachandran
for Mr.K.Govindarajan
For Respondent : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order, in
I.D.O.P.No.102 of 2009, dated 22.01.2011, on the file of the Principal District
Judge, Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.771 of 2013
2.The appellant herein is the petitioner/husband and the respondent
herein is the respondent/wife in the I.D.O.P petition.
3.Brief substance of the petition in I.D.O.P.No.102 of 2009 is as
follows:-
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was
solemnized on 16.07.2007 at Kulaiankarisal Church and after the marriage,
they settled at Ponnagaram, Thoothukudi District. After four months, at the
instigation of the father of the respondent, the couples started a vessel shop at
Tiruchirappalli. After six months, one day, at mid-night, father and brother of
the respondent entered into the house and abused the petitioner badly and also
assaulted him and took the respondent to Kulaiankarisal. The efforts taken by
the petitioner to bring back the respondent ended in vain. After a few months,
the respondent gave birth to a male child and the same was not informed to the
petitioner. On 16.12.2008, when the petitioner and his relatives went to the
house of the respondent, they were not permitted to see the child. The legal
notice, dated 17.12.2008, sent by the petitioner, was not answered by the
petitioner and hence, the petitioner has approached the Court for the relief of
divorce.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.771 of 2013
4.Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent, in
I.D.O.P.No.102 of 2009, is as follows:-
The marriage and life at Ponnagaram are admitted. 35 sovereigns of
gold jewels and Rs.35,000/- hot cash were given the petitioner, at the time of
marriage. The parents of the respondent also presented house hold articles and
utensils worth Rs.60,000/-. The parents of the petitioner had told that they own
four acres of punja land at Rajavinkoil and they had a vessels store and that
they hade a house. After the marriage, the respondent came to know that all the
above said properties really belonged to the maternal uncle of the petitioner.
The maternal uncle of the petitioner suddenly asked the petitioner to quit the
shop and to quit the house, thereby leaving the petitioner and the respondent in
a state of poverty. The respondent gave her jewels to the petitioner to enable
him to pledge them to rise fund and to hire a separate house and to re-start the
business. The parents of the respondent assisted the petitioner to set up
business at Tiruchirappalli. By pledging the jewels of the respondent, the
petitioner raised Rs.30,000/- and gave advance to a shop. After three months,
the father of the petitioner advised him to start a carton box manufacturing
business at Bangalore and the petitioner induced the respondent to demand Rs.
1,00,000/- from the father of the respondent. The petitioner considering the ill-
health of the respondent, left her at her parental house on 20.01.2008. But, due
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.771 of 2013
to the ill advise of his parents, the petitioner refused to take the respondent back
to Tiruchirappalli and demanded her parents to re-deem the jewels pledged by
him. Later, he took her back to Tiruchirappalli, on 17.04.2008. Due to the ill
advise of the parents of the petitioner, the petitioner went to Bangalore to
commence a carton box manufacturing business. The parents of the respondent
were compelled to take the respondent back to Kulaiankarisal, by the
irresponsible behaviour of the petitioner and by the unwarranted interference
from the parents of the petitioner. It is prayed the petition to be dismissed.
5.On the side of the petitioner, one witness was examined and three
documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, two witnesses were
examined and one document was marked.
6. After considering both sides, the trial Court dismissed the petition.
Against the same, the husband has approached this Court by way of this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
7.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the trial Court has
failed to consider the points raised by the appellant in the proper perspective.
The instigation of the respondent to shift the residence to Tiruchirappalli,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.771 of 2013
amounts to cruelty. The respondent failed to inform the appellant about the
birth of the child and prevent the appellant from seeing the child, amounts to
cruelty and mental agony. Without the knowledge and consent of the appellant,
the respondent joined Siddha Medical Course. On the side of the appellant, it is
stated that due to cruelty and desertion, the marriage is irretrievably broken
down and that there is no possibility of re-union and prayed the appeal to be
allowed.
8. On the side of the respondent, an affidavit was filed stating that the
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is pending for the past eight years and several
mediations were taken place and all the efforts ended in vain and there is no
possibility of re-union and that the marriage is irretrievably broken down.
9.On the side of the respondent, it is further stated that the respondent
is having no objection to allow the appeal and to grant divorce to the appellant
as prayed for. In this regard, an affidavit signed by the respondent and attested
by her Advocate, is produced before this Court.
10.It is seen that the marriage between the appellant and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.771 of 2013
respondent was solemnized on 16.07.2007. It is seen that there was some
misunderstanding between the appellant and the respondent from 16.12.2008.
The appellant and the respondent were living separately from 16.12.2008.
I.D.O.P petition was filed in the year 2009, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
was filed in the year 2013, ie, more than 13 years over (from 2008-2021). Both
the parties have admitted that the marriage is irretrievably broken down.
Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order, in I.D.O.P.No.
102 of 2009, dated 22.01.2011, on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Thoothukudi, is hereby set aside and the marriage between the appellant and
the respondent is dissolved. No costs.
24.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Ls
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility
of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.771 of 2013
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Thoothukudi.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.771 of 2013
R.THARANI.,J.
Ls
C.M.A.(MD)No.771 of 2013
24.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
