Madras High Court
M.Selvamani@Daisy vs S.Premkumar on 27 November, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.M.A.No.2914 of 2024
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.2914 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.24328 of 2024
M.Selvamani@Daisy ... Appellant
Vs
S.Premkumar ... Respondent
This Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act,
praying to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 23.04.2024 passed in
O.P.No.5216 of 2022 by the learned V Additional Principal Family Court,
Chennai and dismiss the above petition in O.P.No.5216 of 2022 by allowing
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
C.M.A.No.2914 of 2024
this CMA.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Nagu Sah
For Respondent : Ms.Kavitha Deenadayalan
JUDGMENT
The petition for divorce, on the ground of cruelty, filed by the
husband against his wife, allowed by the V Additional Principal Family
Court Chennai, in O.P.No.5216 of 2022 vide order dated 23.04.2024. Being
aggrieved, the wife has preferred the appeal, which is subject matter of
CMA.No.2914 of 2024 under consideration.
2.The petitioner and the respondent in O.P.No.5216 of 2022
have a prior history of broken marriage. They got married carrying their
previous history of broken marriage and was living at Kolathur, Chennai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
after they found incompatibility to be with the parents of the petitioner /
husband.
3.In his petition for divorce, the petitioner alleges that
since he hails from dalit community, the respondent was making
disparaging comments, insulting remarks and abusive imaginary
allegations. After a spell of separation, for nearly a year, they again
rejoined, on the intervention of police. However, the respondent
continued her abusive conduct, created a sense of anxiety and insecurity in
the mind of the petitioner. She had given three criminal complaints to the
police with false allegations and withdrawn from the marital life wilfully.
4.In the counter, the wife has contended that the allegations in
the divorce petition are intentional, imaginary and false. On 15.11.2019, the
marriage was solemnized and after short period of stay in Kolathur, the
family was shifted to the house of the husband home to have joint family
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
with his parents. While so, when she was in the rest room her father-in-law
entered the room and tried to misbehave with her and this was reported to
her husband. He did not care to condemn the act of his father. This has
created shock and mental agony. She felt sick on 04.09.2020 and was
admitted in the hospital by her parents, after treatment, when she went to the
husband's home, she was prevented from entering the matrimonial home.
Therefore, she was forced to go back to her parents home. On 30.11.2022,
when she again went to her husband's house along with her parents, she
came to know that, they had vacated the house. Only thereafter, she was
forced to give complaint to the Ponneri Police Station against the petitioner
and his family members.
5.The trial Court Chennai, based on the pleadings, framed the
following points for consideration:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
“1.Whether the petitioner was cruelly ill-treated by the
respondent after marriage?
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of
divorce on the ground of cruelty as prayed for?
3.What relief the petitioner is entitled to get?
6.To prove the allegations in the petition, the petitioner
mounted the witness box and marked Exs.P1 to P11. The respondent gave an
oral evidence, but not filed any document. The psychological report was
marked as Ex.C1.
7.The trial Court after considering the mutual allegations made
by each other, many of which were not part of the pleadings, held that the
unfound allegations against the husband that he is an impotent itself amounts
to cruelty. Filing petition for conjugal right, petition for maintenance and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
domestic violence after instituting the divorce petition, exposes the mutual
disgust among the spouse. Since the petitioner has established mental cruelty
caused to him by her wife, divorce granted.
8.Appeal filed by the wife on the ground that, the trial Court
failed to note that she had been always willing to join with her husband after
condoning the misbehavior of her father-in-law. This has been
misunderstood by the trial Court and had cited this incident and subsequent
complaints amounts to cruelty. Further, ignoring the petition filed for
restitution of conjugal right in HMOP No.355 of 2023, the trial Court had
concluded that, she had not taken any steps for reunion. This finding is
perverse on the face of the record. She was forced to stay with her parents
and not allowed to enter the matrimonial home. This fact though pleaded and
proved through evidence, the trial Court miserably failed to appreciate the
same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
9.On behalf of the husband, who is the respondent in the appeal
filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting all the allegations raised in the
grounds of appeal and further submitted that, case of mental cruelty, there
may not be any direct evidence. The conduct of the parties will speak for the
intention to cause cruelty.
10.In this case, her continuous harassment by lodging frivolous
complaints make wilful withdrawal from the matrimonial home and without
staying with her parents without any justification or conduct sufficient to
infer wilful desertion coupled with cruelty. Filing of restitution of conjugal
right perse will not lead to an inference that the petitioner is ready to resume
the conjugal relationship. After filing restitution of conjugal right petition,
the appellant has also filed application before the Judicial Magistrate under
the Domestic Violence Act and another complaint under IPC. While so, her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
conduct proved to be diagonally opposite to her petition for restitution of
conjugal right.
11.This Court at the advantage of perusing the records along
with the testimony of the parties, the appellant in her cross examination
admits about the complaints given against her husband and his family
members. The trial Court, pending the proceedings, had requested the parties
to consult a psychologist and the report of the psychologist is also available,
which indicates that the parties did not cooperate for therapy and therefore,
the same was aborted. It is the case of desertion alleging cruelty and
misbehavior by the in-law. The said allegation is strongly denied by the
husband, who is the petitioner.
12.From the evidence, we find that attempt to have a nuclear
family away from the parents also failed due to the attitude of the parties. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
is true that desertion alleged in the petition is attempted to be proved through
oral evidence and no documentary evidence to prove the wilful desertion. It
is an oath against oath and no documentary evidence available. But the
complaints under the Domestic Violence Act as well as petition for conjugal
right in HMOP No.355 of 2023 initiated after the institution of the petition
for divorce would show that, the appellant wife had no intention of reuniting
with her husband, but was interested in prosecuting him and getting
maintenance.
13.The complaints alleging sexual harassment against the
father-in-law, domestic violence against the husband, father-in-law and
mother-in-law and the maintenance petition against the husband filed one
after another with improvement and embellishment indicates that the
appellant who had finally left the matrimonial home under the guise of
taking medical treatment had not returned back to the matrimonial home and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
after receipt of the notice from her husband, she had started inventing one or
other reason to put the respondent and his family member at constant fear of
litigation.
14.The trial Court on taking note of these facts and the attitude
of the appellant, who had no animus to rejoin husband has rightly dissolved
the marriage on the ground of desertion. This Court finds no reason to justify
any interference in the well considered order of the V Additional Family
Court Chennai in O.P.No.5216 of 2022 dated 23.04.2024. Hence, the appeal
stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
(G.J.J) (M.S.K.J)
27.11.2025
smv
Index: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
Speaking order: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
The V Additional Family Court Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
DR. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
smv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
27.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
