Madras High Court
R.Meena vs J.Rajadurai on 28 August, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
C.M.A(MD)No.396 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 18.07.2025
Pronounced on : 28.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.M.A(MD)No.396 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)No.7029 of 2025
R.Meena ... Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
J.Rajadurai ...Respondent / Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the
Family Court Act, 1984, r/w. Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., to set aside the
fair and decreetal order dated 08.07.2024 made in H.M.O.P.No.564 of
2017 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai and allow this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
C.M.A(MD)No.396 of 2025
For Appellant : Mrs.S,Meena
for Mr.A.L.Kannan
For Respondent : Mr.B.Babu
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.)
The appellant/respondent/wife has filed this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal against the fair order and decreetal order dated
08.07.2024 passed in H.M.O.P.No.564 of 2017 on the file of the Family
Court, Madurai.
2.Brief facts of the petition before the lower Court is as
follows:
(a) The marriage between the petitioner (husband) and
respondent (wife) was solemnised on 27.06.2013 at Thembavani Social
Work Forum, A.A.Road, Madurai. The petitioner was working as a
Lecturer in a Private Catering Institute, and the respondent was working
as a Police Constable in Ramanathapuram.
(b) Ever since the date of marriage, the respondent has not
performed her duty as a dutiful wife towards her husband/the petitioner,
but has spoken disrespectfully using derogatory words towards him. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
respondent herein never spent even a single pie for the family but has
spent all her earnings to repay the loan obtained by her mother, that too
without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner. When the petitioner
asked about the huge loan of Rs 2,00,000/- borrowed by the respondent
from the thrift society, she scolded him in filthy language using
unparliamentary words and insulted him.
(c) After she gave birth to the child, without informing the
petitioner she had vacated the house where the respondent and the
petitioner had previously resided and shifted to the Police Quarters. The
respondent always used filthy language to scold the petitioner and his
mother. She has continuously caused mental distress and has chased the
petitioner from the matrimonial home even in the year 2017, saying that
she will not live with the petitioner anymore. Further, the respondent
threatened the petitioner that she would put the petitioner and his mother
behind the bars by filing a false complaint against them. Due to the said
acts of cruelty caused by the respondent, the petitioner tried to commit
suicide.
(d) The respondent has never spoken the truth about her
work, salary and loan which was obtained by her to settle the debts of her
mother. Further, on the coercion of the respondent, the petitioner has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
settled a loan amount of Rs 60,000/- which was borrowed by the mother
of the respondent even before their marriage.
(e) Further the respondent compelled the petitioner to get
his share of the property and sell it to settle the debts incurred by her
mother for which the petitioner has not accepted for which the
respondent created problems. The respondent failed to cook food and
maintain the child.
(f) It is submitted that neglecting the husband without even
performing any duty towards him as a dutiful wife and voluntarily
deserting the husband by the wife amounts to cruelty. Furthermore, the
petitioner had attempted to commit suicide due to the cruelty committed
by the respondent by foisting a false complaint against him and the
coercive action taken by the police personnel under the instigation of the
respondent.
(g) Therefore, the petitioner submits that there is no
possibility of leading a peaceful life with the respondent, hence filed this
petition for divorce as against the respondent on the ground of cruelty,
seeking to dissolve the marriage solemnized with the respondent on
27.06.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
3. Brief averment contained in the counter filed by the
respondent is as follows:
The respondent denied all the allegations contained in the
petition. The petitioner has not visited the child since the date of filing of
the divorce petition. Taking into consideration the welfare of the child
she wants to live with the petitioner and hence, she seeks dismissal of the
divorce petition.
4. On the side of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and
Exs.P1 and Exs.P17 were marked. On the side of the respondent, he was
examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to Exs.R6 were marked.
5. The trial Court after considering the evidence and records
allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant /respondent /wife
against the divorce order with the following among other grounds:
i. That the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that as
per the averments of the Respondent/husband that the appellant/wife has
deserted the Respondent/husband if so the Respondent/husband would
have preferred restitution of conjugal rights instead of filing a petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
seeking divorce.
ii. That the trial Court ought to have seen that all the
allegation levelled by the respondent/husband against the appellant/wife
is not supported by any material evidence.
iii. That the trial Court ought to have seen that if the
appellant/ wife willfully deserted the respondent/husband then she would
have immediately given her consent for granting the divorce decree
instead of contesting the same.
iv. That the trial Court ought to have seen that all along the
appellant had taken care of herself and her minor child and also the
family's needs during the matrimonial life. Even as per the statement of
the respondent, the appellant had only pledged her jewels and spent her
salary to clear the debt of her mother without his consent which shows
the appellant/wife had lived in the matrimonial home only with the
intention to live with the respondent/husband and not for any other
reasons as alleged by the respondent.
v. That the trial Court ought to have seen that the appellant,
being a woman and mother of the minor child, she would have faced a lot
of struggles more particularly when she was working in the Uniform
Service and at no point of time respondent/husband supportted her to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
overcome the struggles.
vi. That the trial Court failed to take note of the future of the
minor child and the allegation levelled by the respondent/husband which
were not supported by any material evidence or witnesses from which
one could easily understand that it is only a concocted story.
That the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is liable to be set
aside and hence, she prayed to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
appellant/wife has never treated the respondent/husband as her husband
or even a human being. The appellant used to scold the respondent using
filthy language and never speaks any truth about her work, salary and
loan which was obtained by the respondent to settle the debts of her
mother. Further, he reiterated all the averments contained in the petition
and prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
8. In this case, the points for consideration are :
(a) Whether the order passed by the trial Court is
proper or liable to be set aside?
9. Point No.1:
The husband /petitioner filed a petition under section 13(1)
(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage
solemnized on 27.06.2013, on the ground of cruelty with the following
allegations:
a) That the respondent/appellant did not contribute any
money towards the family expenditure. On the contrary, she pledged her
jewels and borrowed money from the bank to discharge the huge debts
incurred by her mother, that too without his knowledge and consent.
Consequently, the creditors, constantly pressurised the petitioner to
discharge the said loans borrowed by his mother-in-law. Under such
compulsion, the petitioner had to discharge a debt incurred by his
mother-in-law by paying a sum of Rs 60,000/-.
b) The respondent compelled the petitioner to get his share
of the property from his mother. Upon the petitioner’s refusal to accede
to such a demand, the respondent drove him out of the matrimonial home
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
along with the child. The petitioner was constrained to leave the
matrimonial home due to the continuous harassment meted out by the
respondent. She further insulted and threatened the petitioner that she
would file a false case against the petitioner by influencing her position
in the police Department. The petitioner however, declined to succumb to
such threats. Subsequently, the petitioner complained to the police
alleging that she had threatened him that she would file a false case.
However, no action was taken by the police authorities as the respondent
influenced the matter to, ensure that the complaint was not acted upon
there by driving him to attempt to commit suicide.
c) The respondent disrespectfully treated the petitioner,
failed to discharge her duties as a dutiful wife. Further misusing her
position in the police department took away the child from his custody.
10. The respondent in her counter totally denied the
allegations contained in the petition. She merely stated that she is willing
to reunite with her husband for the welfare of the child.
11. Regarding the allegations about the debt incurred by the
mother-in-law of the petitioner and the repayment of money, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
respondent initially denied having borrowed any money to discharge the
said liability. However, during cross-examination when, the salary
certificate Ex.B16 was shown to her by pointing out the specific entry,
indicating that she had borrowed money from the thrift society, then she
admitted that she had repaid the money borrowed by her mother. Though
the petitioner has not produced any document to establish that he had
also repaid a portion of the money borrowed by his mother-in-law, the
fact remains that the loan was borrowed by the mother-in-law and was
subsequently repaid by the respondent without the petitioner’s consent, it
cannot be said that the respondent committed any mistake in discharging
the debt of her mother, but the grievance of the petitioner is that she
failed to inform him about the same, which appears to have led to the
misunderstanding between the parties.
12. The petitioner further states that his wife became
pregnant and went to her parents' home for delivery and thereafter, there
was no communication or relationship between the parties for a period of
six months. Respondent admitted that the parties had not met in person
for a period of six months, but stated that they were, however, in contact
through telephone conversation, for which she has not produced any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
evidence.
13. The petitioner further stated that owing to the
misunderstanding between the parties he was compelled to leave the
home along with the child as he couldn’t tolerate the harassment meted
out by the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent by filing a false
complaint forcibly took the child away from the petitioner. However, the
respondent contended that the child had been in her custody throughout
and no such incident occurred as alleged by the petitioner. The complaint
lodged by the petitioner on 13.07.2017 and marked as Ex.P4 which was
forwarded by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, reveals that
the allegations were made on account of harassment meted out by the
respondent. The respondent did not deny that such a complaint had been
filed. Therefore, it stands established that owing to the misunderstanding
between the parties, the petitioner left the home along with the child and
has been living separately since 2017. It is further evident that although
the child was subsequently taken away from the petitioner, he has
continued to live separately thereafter, without resuming cohabitation
with the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
14. As per the petitioner, he had filed a divorce petition
against the respondent during the year 2017 in which the respondent
remained ex-parte. Subsequently, she filed a petition seeking to set aside
the ex-parte order. The same was admitted by the respondent. But as per
the petitioner’s version during that period they again, had a quarrel, and
out of frustration, the petitioner attempted to commit suicide and was
admitted in the hospital.
15. It is established through Ex.P7 that he was admitted in
Vadamalayan Hospital, Madurai on account of consuming poison on
08.03.2021 and discharged on 14.03.2021. This incident gave rise to
several complaints being submitted by the petitioner as well as his
mother. It further reveals from the complaints that when the petitioner
and his mother raised grievances in this regard, the respondent by
misusing her official capacity prevented the said complaints from being
acted upon. The petitioner further contended that as a consequence, two
police officials were transferred from the concerned police station. In
order to establish the same, the petitioner produced Ex.P.6, Ex.P9 and
Ex.P.24 complaints as well as news paper cutting Ex.P8 published in the
newspaper narrating that when the petitioner approached the police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
authorities, instead of taking appropriate action he was subjected to insult
and harassment at the hands of police. The documents filed on behalf of
the petitioner establish that several complaints have been lodged but no
action whatsoever was taken by the police officials. In this context, the
respondent was cross-examined. She deposed that she was not aware of
anything regarding the situation which does not appear to be true. Since
the petitioner had sought details of complaints lodged by him before the
police, it is seen from Ex.P.12 information furnished by the Public
Information Officer, Madurai that in one such complaint dated
16.08.2021, the respondent had appeared, but as the matter could not be
settled, the parties were advised to approach the Court for further course
of action.
16. On scrutiny of the entire records it reveals that from the
year 2017, till date, the petitioner and the respondent have been living
separately. The petitioner had submitted several complaints regarding
harassment meted out to him by the respondent. However, the respondent
not established that the complaints lodged by the petitioner were
motivated by malice or that they were false in nature. On the other hand,
the respondent stated that she was not aware of any such complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
However, such a contention cannot be believed as she herself is
employed in the police department and any complaint against her would
necessarily be brought to her notice. The respondent had not taken any
concrete steps to reunite but merely stated that she desires to reunite for
the sake of her child. However, it is noted that the child’s ear-piercing
ceremony which is an important function in the Hindu community was
celebrated evident from Ex.P17. However, the petitioner was not invited
to participate in the function. If the Respondent had truly intended to
reunite with the petitioner for the sake of the child, she would not have
prevented him from attending such an important function.
17. Furthermore, since no steps have been taken by her
towards reunion and their communications between the parties reflect
constant misunderstanding, it is evident that the respondent’s intention to
reunite is not genuine. The petitioner has proved that he has excluded
from family affairs, harassed to part with this share from his family and
ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home. Subsequently, the child
was also taken away from his custody and he was not allowed to
participate in the function held for the child.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
18. The acts of the respondent thus amount to cruelty and the
petitioner has successfully made out his case.
19. The trial Court after due appreciation of the evidence
and records, rightly allowed the petition by granting a decree of divorce.
Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the trial Court and hence,
the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
20. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. The fair and decreetal order passed in HMOP No.564 of
2017, dated 08.07.2024, by the Family Court, Madurai is confirmed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(A.D.J.C., J.) & (R.P., J.)
28.08.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
To
1.The Judge,
Family Court,
Madurai.
Copy to
1.The Section Officer,
ER/VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
Judgment in
28.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
