Madras High Court
R.Raman vs S.A.Thangamani on 7 November, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.M.A.No.2280 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 07.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
C.M.A.No.2280 of 2016
R.Raman
S/o N.K.Ramasamy
No.4/25, D.F.O.Compound,
Race Course, Coimbatore.
.... Appellant
V.
S.A.Thangamani
W/o Raman
Care of S.A.Rajamani
Sugarcane Institute
Seeranaickenpalayam,
Coimbatore.
.... Respondent
Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the
Family Court Act 1984, against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016
made in H.M.O.P.No.443 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Principal
Family Court, Coimbatore.
______________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:08:43 pm )
C.M.A.No.2280 of 2016
For Appellant :Mr.C.R.Prasanan
For Respondent :Ms.G.Lavanya
for Mr.T.Sai Krishnan
JUDGMENT
Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.
Petition for divorce filed by the appellant/husband under Section
13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed by the Family
Court, Coimbatore. Hence, the present appeal.
2. According to the appellant, the marriage between him and the
respondent was solemnized on 01.02.1998. Out of the said wedlock, a male
child was born on 05.01.1999. The respondent went to her parents' house
for delivery and even after three months after the birth of the child, she did
not return to her matrimonial home inspite of repeated requests. The sister
of the respondent Ms.Kalamani and her brother Mr.Rajamani did not allow
the respondent to join her husband. This caused mental agony to the
appellant leading to an attempt to commit suicide.
3. The further allegation is that he has spent money for the treatment
of his mother-in-law and to secure teacher job for the respondent in a
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:08:43 pm )
private school and despite that, the respondent, on the ill advice of her sister
and sister's husband had left the matrimonial home. She had been under the
clutches of her sister and sister's husband. Hence, a police complaint was
given for illegal detention. However, the police had closed the complaint
recording the statement of the respondent that she will work out her remedy
through the Court.
4. Alleging further that when he caused notice to the respondent on
05.04.2010 calling upon her to join him within 10 days, she replied stating
that she has already instituted Maintenance Case and Guardian Original
Petition and hence she will wait for the outcome of the proceedings.
5. Having waited for a period of two years, the appellant has filed a
petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground that the marriage has
irretrievably broken down. The respondent has filed a counter stating that
the appellant had contracted heavy debt in his native place and unable to
meet out his debt he attempted to commit suicide and also was demanding
money from her parents. He failed to maintain her which forced her to part
the company and take shelter under her well wishers.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:08:43 pm )
6. The Court below on considering the evidence adduced by the
parties, dismissed the petition for divorce on the ground that the appellant
has failed to establish cruelty and since he has not filed a petition for
desertion, he cannot sustain his prayer.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant specifically submits
that the willful withdrawal from the consortium by the respondent, despite
notice calling upon her to re-join him, is a sufficient ground to infer cruelty.
The respondent, even after order dated 31.03.2016 had not taken any steps
for re-union and in fact her Guardian Original Petition with frivolous
contentions to get custody of the child got dismissed and the son is being
brought up by the appellant. The cruelty has to be inferred by the willful
withdrawal of the matrimonial home and also discarding the responsibility
of taking care of a minor child.
8. This Court after hearing the argument made by counsel for the
respondent at length and the reason given by the Court below finds that the
excuse given by the respondent for her withdrawal from the matrimonial
companionship sounds very frivolous and no explanation on her side given
for not joining her husband inspite of receiving legal notice requesting her
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:08:43 pm )
to join him.
9. The records also indicate that on the day when notice Ex.P.1 was
issued to the respondent, the Guardian Original Petition as well as
Maintenance Case was not even numbered. It is only after sending reply,
she has got her Maintenance Case and Guardian Original Petition
numbered.
10. Thus, it is very clear that she had no intention to rejoin her
husband even when notice was issued in the year 2010. At least, she should
have shown some sign of intention to join her husband and minor child after
the dismissal of the divorce petition. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to
show that she had made any attempt for reunion. It is also brought to the
notice of this Court that the Guardian Original Petition filed by the
respondent got dismissed.
11. Taking into consideration the materials placed cumulatively this
Court finds that the order of the Family Court, Coimbatore is to be
interfered with and accordingly, the same is set aside. The marriage that was
solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 01.02.1998 stands
dissolved.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:08:43 pm )
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.
12. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. However there shall
be no order as to costs.
(Dr.G.J.J.) & (M.S.K.J.)
07.11.2025
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes
Speaking order/non speaking order
Neutral citation:yes/no
sl
To
The Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 01:08:43 pm )
