Luyee Raja vs Kavitha
2025 Latest Caselaw 3103 Mad

Madras High Court

Luyee Raja vs Kavitha on 21 February, 2025

Author: G.Jayachandran

Bench: G.Jayachandran

    2025:MHC:543




                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                      DATED : 21.02.2025

                                                          CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
                                                      AND
                                      THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

                                                C.M.A(MD)No.129 of 2019


                 Luyee Raja                                         ...Appellant/Petitioner


                                                             .Vs.


                 Kavitha                                            ... Respondent/Respondent

                 PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family
                 Courts Act praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order made in
                 H.M.O.P.No.270 of 2017, dated 10.8.2018, on the file of Family Court,
                 Sivagangai.

                                     For Appellant          : Mr.P.Karthick

                                     For Respondent         : No appearance




                 1/8

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

                 DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

AND R.POORNIMA,J.

The appellant is the husband of the respondent, who sought for divorce

before the Family Court, Sivagangai, had filed this appeal against the dismissal

of his H.M.O.P.

2.Court notice received by the respondent, but she has not engaged a

counsel. The learned counsel for the appellant produced the Marriage Certificate

of the respondent indicating that she has married one Bharathi Raja on

27.01.2020 and the same got registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Coimbatore

declaring her as his spouse.

3.Be that as it may, the facts of the case is that the appellant and the

respond\ent got married on 25.4.2012. They were blessed with a male child. At

the time of marriage, the appellant/husband was employed as a Police Constable

at Thirupatthur, Sivagangai District. The case of the appellant is that the

respondent want to be with her sister at Coimbatore and pressurising him to get

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis transfer to Coimbatore and when he refused do do so, a Police complaint against

him was lodged causing mental cruelty to him. Realising that the matrimonial

relationship would not survive, he sought for dissolution of marriage on the

ground of cruelty.The Petition for divorce was contested by the respondent

denying the allegations and also making counter allegations against the husband

saying that he is having affair with a divorcee and leading an adulterous life.

4.Before the Trial Court, on the side of the appellant, two witnesses and 7

exhibits were marked. On the side of the krespodnent, two witnesses and three

photographs with CD were marked as Ex.R1(series).

5.The trial Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1.Whether the appellant is entitled to get the relief of divorce on the

ground of cruelty?

6.Appreciating the evidence, the Court below held that the allegations

made by the appellant/Petitioner does not satisfy the definition of cruelty, the

alleged pressure to get transfer from Thiruppathur to Coimbatore. According to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the trial Court, it will not amount to the act of cruelty. The allegation of refusal to

have cohabitation also disbelieved by the trial Court, taking note of the fact that

the spouse has bequeathed a male child. Admittedly, after child birth, the

spouses were living together for more than a year. Regarding false complaints to

the Police, the trial Court concluded that giving complaiont by itself will not

amount to cruelty. Being aggrieged by the above said findings and dismissal of

the divorce petition, the present appeal is filed.

7.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent had

deserted the husband and a young boy and living separately and was making

various allegations including extra marital affair against the appellant. Wilful

withdrawal from the matrimonal consortium and cohabitation though well found

from the conduct of the respondent, the trial Court failed to take note of the said

fact. The learned counsel for the appellant referring to Ex.P6-copy of the

complaint given by the respondent addressed to the Chief Minister’s Cell as well

as to the Human Righs Commission, Director General of Police and

Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, submitted that the tenor of the

complaint and the complaint to the higher officials after instituting H.M.O.P for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis divorce would clearly show that the respondent by making false complaints

been repeatedly causing mental cruelty. The learned counsel for the appellant also

submitted that the respondent has admitted in her cross examination that Ex.P6

was sent by her and due to the false complaint given to the higher officials, the

appellant had made an attempt to commit suicide, which ended in initiating

departmental proceedings against him.

8.This Court, on a perusal of Ex.P6, Complaint admittedly sent by the

respondent to the higher officials, we find that she has made wild allegations

againt him branding him as a terrorist and contact with foreign outfits. This

complaint been given only after instituting the divorce petition. From the

complaint, this Court also finds that the respondent has instituted Domestic

Violence Complaint and it is pending. From the second complaint Ex.P7,this

Court finds that the respondent has left the matrimonial home without any

intimation and by way of informing the same, the respondent has made certain

allegations against the appellant. Having made all those allegations against her

husband including extra marital affiar with a divorcee and suspected that he is

having connection with terrorist group, cannot be ignored as an ordinary

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis complaint or genuine one. The said complaint against the appellant, who was in

uniformed sevice, natually would have cause several mental torture and cruelty

which covers the definition of cruelty under the Act. This Court also taking note

of the fact that the respondent had left the minor child, not taking care of him and

the subsequent conduct would also indicate that she is not interested to save the

marital relationship with the appellant. Taking note of the nature of the complaint

by the respondent against the appellant which has been proved through Ex.P6 and

Ex.P7, this Court finds that the appellant been put to mental cruelty by the

respondent, which has made the marital relationship unworkable.

9.For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the trial Court has

failed to appreciate Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 in a proper perspective and hence, the order

passed by the trial Court has to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the marriage solemnized between the

appellant and respondent on 25.4.2012 at Pattamangalam Village according to

Hindu rites and customs is dissolved by a decree of divorce. There shall be no

order as to costs.

[G.J.,J.] [R.P.,J.] 21.02.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsn

To

The Judge, Family Court, Sivagangai.

Copy to

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

and R.POORNIMA,J.

vsn

JUDGMENT MADE IN

21.02.2025

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