Madras High Court

R.Deepa vs N. Unnikrishnan on 17 September, 2025

Author: R.Suresh Kumar

Bench: R.Suresh Kumar

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                              RESERVED ON                     : 23.07.2025
                                          PRONOUNCED ON                      : 17.09.2025
                                                            CORAM
                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
                                                              and
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
                                             CMA.No.1971 of 2025
                                       and CMP.Nos.17239 & 17241 of 2025

                    R.Deepa                                                    ... Appellant/Respondent
                                                               Vs.
                    N. Unnikrishnan                            ... Respondents/Petitioner
                    PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the
                    Family Courts Act, as against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2025
                    made in HMOP.No.1343 of 2014 on the file of the 5th Additional Family
                    Court, Chennai.
                                        For Appellant            : Ms.B.D.Sumana

                                        For Respondent           : Ms.R.Thenmozhi

                                               JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by P.DHANABAL.,J) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the fair and

decreetal order passed by the V Additional Family Court, Chennai, in

HMOP.No.1343 of 2014, wherein, the respondent herein filed a petition

seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for

dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:13:56 pm ) solemnized on 27.11.2002 at Chennai, Singarathottam and registered in the

office of the Sub-Registrar, Royapuram, Chennai and the same was allowed.

2. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by

the wife/appellant. Before the Family Court, the respondent/husband has

filed a petition seeking divorce alleging that the marriage between the

appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 27.11.2002 at Arulmigu

Muthumariamman temple, Singarathottam, Chennai as per the Hindu rites

and customs and the same was registered in the Sub-registrar Office,

Royapuram, Chennai. Due to wedlock, a male child was born on

06.08.2003. The appellant/wife wanted to live extreme lavish life for which

the respondent/husband was forced to extremely work hard to fulfill her

demands. In the year 2008, the appellant was interested in working with

marketing company called 'Herbal life'. She demanded to invest Rs.2 lakhs

in the said Company and the same was also invested. However, she lost

Rs.5-6 lakhs in the said business. She used to receive calls at hard hours at

night and failed to evince interest in the respondent and their son. Also the

appellant/wife developed a relationship with other unmarried neighbour

and often she went to his house and lend him laptop, bike and groceries. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:13:56 pm ) respondent/husband found that the appellant/wife was sending messages to

her neighbour and the same was questioned by him, but she abused him and

did not show any interest towards him. The appellant/wife refused to have

matrimonial relationship with the respondent and also threatened to transfer

his assets in her name. Thereafter, the respondent/husband went to USA and

the appellant/wife stayed in Hyderabad. Thereafter she refused to live with

the respondent/husband. The respondent thereby sent a legal notice to settle

the issue amicably and in view of mutual consent. The appellant/wife filed

a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in MC.No.348 of 2013. Therefore,

the appellant/wife caused cruelty to the respondent/husband and thereby

filed a petition seeking divorce.

3. The appellant/wife filed a counter stating that the marriage between

the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband is a love marriage. The

respondent/husband accepted the marriage only because the appellant/wife

is the daughter of a business man. After the delivery of the child, the

respondent/husband and his mother had quarrelled with the appellant's

mother and left the hospital even without informing the appellant/wife. The

respondent/husband wanted to separate the appellant/wife from her parents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:13:56 pm ) so he applied for job out of Chennai and found a job in Hyderabad. There

was no loss in the business and the appellant/wife had lot of clients and

made good profits. The father of the appellant/wife also partially contributed

for the purchase of flat at Manasarovar Heights, Secunderabad and the same

was registered in their joint names. The respondent/husband was living in

adultery so he made false allegations against the appellant/wife. He was

involved in extra marital affair and in order to hide the same, he often

quarrelled with the appellant/wife and avoided her and sleep in a separate

room. The respondent/husband also made false allegations in order to

defame her name. He only harassed the appellant/wife. The

respondent/husband was living in adultery travelling with women of his

choice in business class and never bothered to take his wife or son

anywhere. The respondent/husband only forced the appellant/wife to leave

the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the appellant/wife filed a petition for

maintenance in MC.No.348 of 2013 already O.P.No. 1343 of 2014 was filed

and examined by the Family Court, Chennai and thereafter, a judgment was

pronounced thereafter in the appeal, the matter has been remanded back to

let in additional evidence.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:13:56 pm )

4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court framed points for

consideration that whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground

of cruelty. Before the Family Court, on the side of the appellant/wife one

witness was examined and 21 exhibits were marked. On the side of the

respondent/husband, one witness was examined and 9 exhibits were marked.

After perusing and analyzing the oral and documentary evidences, the

Family Court has allowed the petition and the marriage between the

appellant/wife and respondent/husband solemnized on 27.11.2002 was

dissolved by granting divorce on the ground of cruelty.

5. Now challenging the said fair and decreetal order, the

appellant/wife filed this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife would submit that the

respondent/husband filed petition for divorce as against the appellant/wife

by levelling false allegations and there is no dispute in respect of

relationship between the parties and one son born to them. In order to prove

the alleged cruelty pleaded by the respondent/husband, no sufficient

evidence was adduced, whereas the appellant/wife categorically deposed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:13:56 pm ) about the cruelty caused by her husband. However, the trial court without

considering the evidences adduced by the parties on proper appreciation,

allowed the petition as if the ground of cruelty was proved.

7. The family court failed to consider and appreciate the oral

evidences as well as the Exs.R1 to R21 and absolutely there are no

evidences to prove the alleged cruelty. The family court failed to consider

the facts properly and granted divorce erroneously. With regard to grant of

permanent alimony, the appellant/wife is expressing her grievance that the

interim maintenance already ordered is not sufficient to meet out her

expenses. The appellant/wife is always ready and willing to live with the

respondent/husband. But the same was not considered by the family court

and therefore, fair and decreetal order passed by the Family Court is liable

to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband would

submit that the respondent filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty

caused by the appellant/wife. Already she filed a petition for maintenance

and the same was allowed and the maintenance is being paid without any

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:13:56 pm ) arrears. The appellant/wife caused cruelty and both are living separately

from 12.10.2012 and there is no possibility for re-union and the

appellant/wife also initiated so many legal proceedings as against the

respondent/husband. It shows that she is not ready to live with the

respondent and therefore, the Family Court correctly came to the conclusion

that there is no possibility for reunion as there is a long period of continuous

separation and the matrimonial bond is beyond repair and the same amounts

to cruelty and hence the Family Court granted divorce. Therefore, the fair

and decreetal order passed by the Family Court is in order and hence, the

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. This court head both sides and perused the records.

10. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side and

perusing the records, the point for determination in this appeal is whether the

respondent is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

11. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the marriage between the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:13:56 pm ) parties was solemnized on 27.11.2002 as per the Hindu rites and customs

and thereby a male child was born to them on 06.08.2003. While so, the

respondent/husband filed a petition before the Family Court for grant of

divorce on the ground of cruelty. According to the respondent/husband, the

appellant/wife caused cruelty and they were separated from 12.10.2012 and

living separately. Though both the parties adduced evidences to support their

contention and marked evidences, the trial court granted divorce on the

ground of cruelty by holding that the parties are living separately from

12.10.2012. Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it

may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair and the

marriage becomes a fiction though separated by the legal tie. By refusing to

sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of

marriage; On the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and

emotions of the parties. In such a like situations, it may lead to mental

cruelty” by referring the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samar

Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCR 428 .

12. There is no dispute that the parties were separated from

12.10.2012 onwards and for more than 12 years they are unable to re-unite.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:13:56 pm ) The petition was filed on the ground of cruelty and both the parties made

allegations of adultery against each other and they are living separately from

the year 2012. Therefore there is no possibility for reunion. At this juncture,

it is relevant to refer the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in '

Rakesh Raman Vs.Smt. Kavita on 26.04.2023 wherein the Supreme Court

held that

“where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitationi with multiple court cases between the parties, then continuation of such a 'marriage' would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other”

13. Therefore, the Family Court granted divorce on the ground of

cruelty due to long separation and the same is in order. Hence, there is no

illegality or perversity in the order passed by the family court. However, the

family court failed to consider the permanent alimony and it is an admitted

fact that the male child was born to them and he is with the appellant wife

and therefore already maintenance was also awarded and the same is being

paid to the appellant /wife and her son. Therefore, in order to put an end to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:13:56 pm ) the lis between the parties, it is appropriate to direct the respondent/husband

to pay permanent alimony and maintenance to the appellant/wife.

14. Though there is no evidence about the financial status of the

parties, already the respondent is paying maintenance to the appellant and

he is working in the private company and earning a reasonable salary and

therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is

appropriate to direct the respondent/husband to pay permanent alimony and

maintenance to the appellant/wife, thereby quantified the permanent alimony

of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only)

15. In view of the above, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly

allowed and the order passed by the family court in respect of granting

divorce on the ground of cruelty is confirmed and this court passes decree

directing the respondent/husband to pay Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty