Madras High Court
V.Porkodi vs G.Subramani on 17 October, 2025
Author: G. Jayachandran
Bench: G. Jayachandran
C.M.A.No.1340 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR.G. JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
C.M.A.No.1340 of 2018
V.Porkodi ... Appellant(s)
Vs.
G.Subramani ... Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family
Court Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2017 passed by
the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in O.P.No.3014 of
2006.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.S.Vijayanand
For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.Jayachander
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 12:24:28 pm )
C.M.A.No.1340 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.)
The marriage between Mr.G.Subramani and Ms.V.Porkodi was
solemnized on 05.09.2005 at I.C.F. Golden Jubilee Thirumana Mandapam,
Chennai. The marital relationship, however, turned strained, and a son was
born to them on 11.08.2006. Alleging cruelty, the husband filed O.P.No.3014
of 2006 after the spouses got separated and were living apart for nearly ten
years. In the divorce proceedings, the wife contended that she was ready and
willing to resume cohabitation, but she was not permitted to do so. She also
levelled allegations of physical harassment and ill-treatment. Both parties
were examined, and Exhibits P1 to P3, including proof of marriage and notice
from the wife to the husband, were marked.
2. The Family Court, taking note of the fact that the parties had been
living separately since 2006 with no sign of reconciliation, and considering
the mutual allegations of cruelty, held that there was no possibility of peaceful
cohabitation. Relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of “Samar Ghosh -vs- Jaya Ghosh” reported in (2007) 4 SCC
511, and considering the long separation and the absence of any possibility of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 12:24:28 pm )
reunion between the parties, as well as the apprehension of cruelty, the Family
Court has dissolved the marriage vide order dated 08.08.2017.
3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 08.08.2017, the wife preferred the
present C.M.A. No.1340 of 2018 before this Court. The appeal has been
pending for nearly seven years. Though the matter was referred to mediation,
the attempt at reconciliation did not fructify. When the case was taken up for
final hearing, there was again heated exchange of allegations through counsel.
The fact remains that the marriage solemnized on 05.09.2005 came to an end
shortly after one year. Immediately thereafter, the husband filed the Divorce
Petition, but it took about eleven years for the Family Court to pass its final
order. Aggrieved by the said order, the wife approached this Court by filing
C.M.A.No.1340 of 2018 before the Hon’ble High Court. Even thereafter,
nearly seven more years have passed. In total, more than fifteen years have
gone by, yet there is no sign of reunion or any intention to forgive and forget.
4. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the marriage has
irretrievably broken down and reached a point of no return. Hence, the decree
of divorce granted by the Family Court is confirmed, and the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. If the appellant or her son has any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 12:24:28 pm )
other legal right or claim against the respondent, the dismissal of this appeal
shall not preclude them from working out their remedy in the manner known
to law. No costs.
(Dr.G.J.,J.) (M.S.K.,J.)
17.10.2025
skr
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
I Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 12:24:28 pm )
DR.G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
skr
17.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 12:24:28 pm )
