Madras High Court
D.Dhanaraja vs P.Rekha on 27 November, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.M.A.No.2454 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 14.11.2025
Pronounced on : 27.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
C.M.A.No.2454 of 2017
D.Dhanaraja ... Petitioner / Appellant
Vs
P.Rekha ... Respondent / Respondent
This Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act,
praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2017 passed by the
Family Court, Dharmapuri, in F.C.H.M.O.P. No.59 of 2016.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
C.M.A.No.2454 of 2017
For Appellant : Mr.K.Bhaskar
For Respondent : Mr.R,Nalliyappan
JUDGMENT
HMOP No.559 of 2016 for divorce filed by the husband on the ground of
wilful desertion. The Family Court, Dharmpuri, on considering the evidence filed in support of
the pleadings of respective parties, dismissed the petition, stating it lacks bonafide. Being
aggrieved by the dismissal, the appeal under consideration is filed by the dissatisfied husband.
2.The appellant, as petitioner, went before Family Court, carrying his case that
his marriage with the respondent on 29.06.2012 at Salem had shattered due to rude and quarrel
some behaviour of his wife, who refuse to carry on the normal domestic life expected from the
spouse. She not even use to attend the basic needs of the petitioner and his parents. She has left
the matrimonial home and started sending disparaging and derogatory messages to the e-mail
address from different names. When a complaint given to the police in this regard, she was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
enquired and she after admitting her guilt of sending such disparaging and derogatory messages,
gave an undertaking that she will not indulge in such indecent act. With the said promise, she
took the custody of the child with her and even thereafter, she had not changed her attitude and
had not come forward to reunite.
3.Contrarily, the respondent had made counter allegations against her husband
stating that she was forced to do menial work for her in-laws, despite her ill health. She was
treated as a servant maid in the family and was constantly abused with filthy language. She was
forced to leave the matrimonial home during the month of June 2016. She admit to the police that
she has sent the disparaging and derogatory e-mails to her husband in different names with
expectation that she will be taken back into the matrimonial fold. She always willing to reunite
the petitioner.
4.The petitioner / husband examined as PW-1 and fourteen documents were
marked. The respondent / wife examined as RW-1 and three documents were marked.
5.The evidence of the petitioner, disbelieved by the trial Court regarding the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
disparaging e-mails received by the husband and the admission of the wife about her guilt of
generating those e-mails, the Court below has held that the husband has not placed material
evidence to substantiate the allegation. He has not summoned the police, who had investigated his
complaint and therefore, held that there is no sufficient proof to hold the respondent / wife
responsible for the offensive e-mails. It has also found fault on the petitioner / husband for not
taking his wife to Saudi Arabia, where he was employed and keeping his wife in his parents
home. While concluding the finding, the trial Court has observed that cruelty implies and means
harash conduct of such intensity and persistence, which would make it impossible for the spouse
to sustain the marriage and it is impossible to reach such satisfactory conclusion that the
petitioner / husband was put to cruelty sufficient to grant divorce.
6.The grounds of appeal narrates how the trial Court has failed to properly
appreciate the evidence placed before it, particularly the admission of the respondent in the cross
examination that she has not taken any steps to reunite with her husband after she got separated
from him during the month of June 2016 and she has not even replied to the notice sent to her to
reunite. The admission of the respondent, sending disparaging e-mails, to the police, as well as in
the counter, been totally overlooked by the Family Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, reading through the
disparaging e-mails marked as Exs.P3, P5, P7 and P9 and the statement of the respondent
given to the police marked as Ex.P13, submitted that these documents sufficient enough to arrive
at irresistible conclusion that the husband was subjected to cruelty after wilful desertion.
8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that
the petition filed only on the ground of wilful desertion. However, the additional ground pleaded
alleging cruelty when the relief sought only on the ground of desertion, the appellant cannot
improve his plea by adding additional ground of cruelty. That apart, he also submitted that for
wilful desertion, the petitioner ought to have proved that the respondent left the matrimonial home
on her own, without any reason. Whereas, in this case, the hardship and cruelty met by the
respondent, at the hands of her in-laws, in the absence of her husband / appellant was the cause
for the desertion. Since it is not a wilful desertion, the Family Court has rightly dismissed the
petition for divorce.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
9.The point for consideration whether the separation of the appellant and the
respondent, since June 2016, is a wilful withdrawal or withdrawal by force.
10.It is admitted that, after marriage, the appellant was serving
in Saudi Arabia and the wife was in the matrimonial home along with the
parents and sister of the appellant. It is also an admitted case, that from June,
soon after the child birth, the respondent has left the matrimonial home and
living separately along with her son. It is also an admitted fact that when the
appellant caused notice, Ex.P10 dated 27.06.2016, calling upon the
respondent to come and join him and resume the marital life, the respondent
neither replied nor joined the appellant.
11.In this context, if we read the content of Exs.P3, P5, P7 and
P9, the alleged derogatory e-mails received by the appellant from different
name, but admitted by the respondent that it was originated from her side,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
though later retracted, it is very clear that the respondent is not inclined to
join with her husband to save the marital life. Even after the dismissal of the
divorce petition, eight years ago, till now there is no sign of expressing
willingness to reunite.
12.Regarding the separation, the Family Court had not considered the
conduct of the respondent who has left the matrimonial home on her own
and had not joined her husband inspite of causing notice. Even after
dismissal of the divorce petition, she has not taken any interest for reunion.
13.When the matter came up for consideration, the main emphasis
before the Court was non-payment of maintenance and not about resuming
the marital life. The Court cannot be a felicitous of the fact that insofar as
matrimonial disputes are concerned, the attitude of the parties before filing
petition, during pendency of the petition and after the disposal of the petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
varies and the Courts are suppose to take a pragmatic decision, so that, the
sour among the spouse does not carry for a long affecting the prospects of
the children.
14.In this case, Ex.P13 indicate that the respondent has admitted
generating derogatory e-mails to the address of appellant / husband. If one
go through the content of those e-mails, it will be certain that no person can
continue the marital relationship, if such letters been emanated from his
spouse.
15.For good reasons, the respondent now disown the e-mails.
However, her allegations in the counter, put in different words, is similar to
the content of the e-mails, except the vulgarity found in it. The continuous
disinclination to join the appellant is yet another reason to infer that the
respondent withdrawn the matrimonial home on her own. Exiting from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
matrimonial home, does not prevent the respondent from retaining
relationship with her husband and setting up family elsewhere.
16.From the evidence, we find no material to infer that, after coming
out of the matrimonial home, the respondent / wife made an attempt to
establish nuclear family. Her silence to the notice, Ex.P10 dated 27.06.2016,
speaks volume. Unfortunately, the Family Court has not taken out of the said
fact. Hence, we are of the view that withdrawal from the matrimonial life by
the respondent is wilful, continuous and unreasonable.
17.For the said reasons, the appeal allowed. The judgment and decree
dated 27.02.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Dharmapuri in
F.C.HMOP No.59 of 2016 is set aside. The marriage held between the
appellant and the respondent at Salem dated 29.06.2012 stands dissolved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
No costs. If any maintenance ordered by the Court below shall continue to
be paid, unless modified or altered through a separate proceedings in future.
(G.J.J) (M.S.K.J)
27.11.2025
smv
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
The Family Court, Dharmapuri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
DR. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
smv
Judgment in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
27.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
