Madras High Court
Sathish vs Renuka on 19 March, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
C.M.A(MD) Nos.200 of 2023 & 508 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 31.01.2025
Pronounced On : 19.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.M.A(MD) Nos.200 of 2023 & 508 of 2024
In CMA(MD)No.200 of 2023 : -
Sathish ... Appellant
vs.
Renuka ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family
Courts Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2021 in
HMOP No.328 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Balakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Mathiyalagan
In CMA(MD)No.508 of 2024 : -
Sathish ... Appellant
vs.
Renuka ... Respondent
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:20 pm )
C.M.A(MD) Nos.200 of 2023 & 508 of 2024
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family
Courts Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2021 in
HMOP No.26 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Karur.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Balakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Mathiyalagan
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
The marriage between Sathish and Renuka was solemnized on
10.09.2017 at Venkatramanasamy Temple, Thanthondrimalai, Karur.
Sathish is employed as a temporary computer operator in the office of the
District Collector, Karur. Renuka is employed as a government school
teacher. Their marital relationship came under strain and they have been
living separately. Sathish filed HMOP No.328 of 2018 on the file of the
Family Court, Karur seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of
cruelty on the part of the wife. Renuka filed HMOP No.26 of 2019
seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Karur.
Sathish examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. Renuka
examined herself as RW.1 and one Mohammed Sultan was examined on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:20 pm )
C.M.A(MD) Nos.200 of 2023 & 508 of 2024
her side as RW.2. No evidence was marked on her side. After
considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge allowed
HMOP No.26 of 2019 filed by the wife and dismissed HMOP No.328 of
2028 filed by the husband. Aggrieved by the same, Sathish filed these
civil miscellaneous appeals.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the parties were together for hardly five days. No children was born
through the wedlock. For the last seven years, they have been living
separately. Their marital relationship has irretrievably broken down and
this by itself would constitute cruelty. The learned counsel for the
appellant called upon this Court to snap the marital tie by reversing the
order of the court below and by allowing these appeals.
3.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
the impugned order does not call for interference.
4.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through
the evidence on record. The point for determination is whether the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:20 pm )
C.M.A(MD) Nos.200 of 2023 & 508 of 2024
appellant had proved that the respondent was guilty of cruelty. It is well
settled that divorce cannot be granted for the asking unless it is by
mutual consent. Onus is on the appellant who has sought to dissolve the
marriage to prove that cruelty has been committed by the respondent.
HMOP No.3288 of 2018 was filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. We carefully went through the petition averments
and also the evidence of PW.1. As rightly observed by the court below,
the petitioner has not made any major allegation against the respondent.
The appellant examined himself as PW.1. He has not examined any other
witness on his side. Non-examination of independent witnesses has
seriously undermined the petitioner's case. For instance, he stated that
when elders of the family and relatives were sent to resolve the issue,
they were insulted by the respondent. If that be so, at least one of the
persons could have been examined on his side. The appellant had not
done so. Even Exs.P5 and P6 are only receipts issued by the
jurisdictional police. The receipts merely contain an endorsement. In
the receipt, it has been mentioned that the parties are remaining separate
on account of differences of opinion. Admittedly, the respondent is
working as a government school teacher. She was transferred from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:20 pm )
C.M.A(MD) Nos.200 of 2023 & 508 of 2024
Karur to Neerpathurai. Therefore, the respondent cannot be blamed for
not staying in Karur. It is well settled that an employee cannot be
charged with cruelty or separation or denying conjugal company only on
the ground that she had been living in a place different from the place of
the husband.
5.The case of the respondent is that soon after the marriage, the
mother of the appellant compelled her to hand over the jewelry weighing
around 30 sovereigns so as to keep the same in a bank locker. That the
demand was made has been admitted by the appellant. The respondent
refused to part with her jewels. It is well settled that the jewels given at
the time of marriage by the bride's family are the exclusive property of
the wife and that she cannot be called upon to part with the same.
Applying the principle of preponderance of probability, we conclude that
it is this incident that led to the break down of the relationship between
the parties. We are of the view that the wife cannot be blamed for the
ensuing outcome.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:20 pm )
C.M.A(MD) Nos.200 of 2023 & 508 of 2024
6.It is true that the parties are remaining separate for the last
several years. We are equally conscious that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in such cases held that such a long separation by itself would constitute
cruelty and that divorce can be granted. But then, such an approach can
be adopted where both the parties have not at all been united. If in this
case, divorce is granted on the ground of separation and the marital tie is
snapped, the appellant will be taking advantage of his own wrong. The
respondent cannot be attributed with any blameful conduct. When it is
not our finding that her conduct amounted to cruelty, it would not be fair
to grant divorce at the instance of the appellant. After a careful
appreciation of the evidence on record, we are of the view that the
approach adopted by the court below is justified and sound. Interference
with the same is not warranted.
7.These civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed. No costs.
(G.R.S., J.) (R.P., J.)
19.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
SKM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:20 pm )
C.M.A(MD) Nos.200 of 2023 & 508 of 2024
To
The Family Court, Ramanathapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:20 pm )
C.M.A(MD) Nos.200 of 2023 & 508 of 2024
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
SKM
C.M.A(MD) Nos.200 of 2023 & 508 of 2024
19.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:20 pm )
