Madras High Court
N.Sankar Pandiyan vs Sree Jamol on 19 August, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)No.1635 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 19.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD)No. 1635 of 2010
N.Sankar Pandiyan ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
Sree Jamol ...Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 55 of
Indian Divorce Act to call for the records relating to the impugned order
passed by the Principal District Judge. Thoothukudi, in I.D.O.P.No.327
of 2009 dated 03.09.2010 and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises under the following circumstances:
i) The appellant had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal
rights before the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.
ii) The respondent opposed the petition stating that the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had caused cruelty and demanded dowry, due to which the respondent
had left the matrimonial home and therefore, the petition is liable to be
dismissed;
iii) The appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness
as P.W.2, besides marking Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 on his side. The respondent
examined herself as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R.1.
iv) The trial court, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the appellant and the respondent did not
have a cordial relationship; that there is evidence to show that the
respondent had given complaints against the appellant for dowry demand
and cruelty and that the complaints filed by the respondents were
registered as First Information Reports by the police and the
investigation was under progress and that since the respondent had
suffered cruelty at the hands of the appellant, the appellant would not be
entitled to the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
complaints filed by the respondent were not true and that the appellant
was always ready and willing to live with the respondent; that the
respondent due to ill-advice given by certain family members, had left
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the matrimonial home and he is also willing to take back the respondent
and live with her.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, submitted
that the trial court had rightly dismissed the petition based on the
evidence on record to show that the appellant had subjected her to cruelty
and therefore, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home.
4. The point for consideration in the appeal is as follows:
'Whether the appellant is entitled to an order of restitution of
conjugal rights?'
5. This Court finds that the appellant married the respondent on
01.09.2004. Admittedly, the appellant and the respondent have been
living separately since 09.11.2005. The respondent met with an accident
and was treated as an inpatient in a hospital; and thereafter due to certain
difference, she went to her parents house. In spite of best efforts taken by
the family members, the appellant and the respondent were unable to
reconcile their differences. At this stage, the appellant had filed a petition
for restitution of conjugal rights in the year 2010. The evidence adduced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on either side suggests that the respondent had complained of cruelty on
account of dowry demand against the appellant. In such circumstances,
the respondent cannot be compelled to live with the appellant.
5. This Court finds that the finding of the tribunal that
reconciliation was not possible and that the appellant is not entitled to
restitution of conjugal rights cannot be faulted. In any case, admittedly,
the appellant and the respondent have been living separately since 2005
for about 20 years. No useful purpose would be served even if this Court
were to hold that the appellant is entitled to restitution of conjugal rights.
The point is answered accordingly Hence, the appeal deserves to be
dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
19.08.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
CM
To
1. The Principal District Judge. Thoothukudi
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
CM
Judgment made in
19.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
