Madras High Court
Mrs.G.Maria Sangeetha vs Mr.V.Karthik on 21 November, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.M.A.No.2618 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 21.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
C.M.A.No.2618 of 2018
and CMP No.19763 of 2018
Mrs.G.Maria Sangeetha
.... Appellant
V.
Mr.V.Karthik
.... Respondent
Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the
Family Court Act 1984, against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2018
made in O.P.No.4185 of 2017 on the file of the IV Additional Family Court,
______________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 11:25:10 am )
C.M.A.No.2618 of 2018
Chennai.
For Appellant :Ms.R.Priyadharshini
for Mr.L.Palanimuthu
For Respondent :No appearance
JUDGMENT
Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.
Appeal by the wife who before the Family Court had consented for
divorce but now challenging the decree of dissolution of marriage on the
ground that there was missstatement of fact and fraud played on her by the
respondent to get dissolution of marriage.
2. According to the appellant, the custody of the minor daughter was
agreed to be with her, however, the husband is retaining the custody by way
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 11:25:10 am )
of misrepresentation and the learned counsel, to emphasize that there was
misrepresentation on the part of the husband, points out the observation of
the Family Court Judge who had stated that out of the wedlock they were
blessed with a female child, born on 09.12.2013 named as Irene Joyce, who
is under the care and custody of the 1st petitioner (V.Karthik – husband).
3. Since serious allegation regarding the custody of the child has been
made by the appellant, who has actually consented for the divorce, this
Court thought it fit to call for the original records to verify. Accordingly,
records have been received and we have given our conscious and careful
consideration over the records.
4. The petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 10-A(1)
of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 been jointly presented by the appellant and
the respondent before the Family Court, Chennai on 18.11.2017. Regarding
the custody of the child, it is stated in paragraph 12 of the joint petition as
below:
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 11:25:10 am )
12. The petitioners state that now the minor child is in the
nd
custody of the 2 petitioner for which there is no objection for
the 1st petitioner. Further the 1st petitioner undertakes to spend
all the expenses to the minor child for her education.
5. The parties were examined by the Family Court on 02.07.2018,
wherein the proof affidavit of the husband in paragraph 3 is stated that the
daughter Irene Joyce was born on 09.12.2013 and now she is under the
custody of the first petitioner, i.e., Karthik – husband.
6. However, in paragraph 12 of the same proof affidavit, it is stated as
follows:
'12.I submit sate that now the minor child is in the custody
nd st
of the 2 petitioner for which there is no objection for the 1
petitioner. Further the 1st petitioner undertakes to spend all the
expenses to the minor child for her education.'
7. The proof affidavit which is more important to consider the grounds
raised in this appeal states at paragraph 3 that the minor child is under her
custody. In Paragraph 12 also it is reiterated that the minor child is under
her custody and her husband has no objection. While so, the
typographical error found in the order passed by the Family Court by
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 11:25:10 am )
st nd
mentioning 1 petitioner instead of 2 petitioner in paragraph 4 of the order
is now been taken advantage of the appellant herein to challenge the consent
order of divorce.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the child is
continued to be in her custody. However, taking advantage of the error in
the order, the respondent is not paying any money to meet out the expenses
for her as well as for the minor child for her education.
9. We make it very clear that the parties are bound by the terms of
agreement upon which the marriage was dissolved. If there is any breach,
particularly, paragraph 12 of the proof affidavit filed by the husband, it is
open to the appellant herein to seek for appropriate remedy before the
appropriate Court for maintenance and expenses. Challenging the consent
order is not a remedy available to her. Hence, this appeal stands dismissed
with the liberty stated above. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition
is also dismissed.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 11:25:10 am )
(Dr.G.J.J.) & (M.S.K.J.)
21.11.2025
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes
Speaking order/non speaking order
Neutral citation:yes/no
sl
To
The IV Additional Family Court, Chennai
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 11:25:10 am )
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.
Sl
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 11:25:10 am )
21.11.2025
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 11:25:10 am )
