Madras High Court
R.Selvakumari vs R.Rajkumar on 17 September, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.M.A.No.2649 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
C.M.A.No.2649 of 2024
R.Selvakumari ... Appellant
-vs-
R.Rajkumar ... Respondent
PRAYER : Appeal against the order and decree, dated 22.08.2024, passed in
H.M.O.P.No.1855 of 2019, on the file of V Additional Family Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Ms.R.Selvakumari,
Party-in-Person.
For Respondent : Mr.M.L.Joseph
JUDGMENT
(By Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the wife, being
aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 22.08.2024, passed in
H.M.O.P.No.1855 of 2019, by V Additional Family Court, Chennai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:41:59 pm )
2. The husband/respondent herein filed a petition under Section
13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act to dissolve the marriage between him
and the respondent/appellant herein, which was solemnised on 20.09.2010 at
Chennai. According to him, the marriage between him and the respondent was
solemnised as per the Hindu customs and rites. They were blessed with a girl
child, by name, Gayanthika Varani on 25.09.2012 at Chennai. It was a love
marriage without the consent of the parents of either party. The respondent
informed the petitioner that she was married to one Raja and has begotten two
children through the first marriage and the said marriage was legally
dissolved. The petitioner believed that he was giving a life to a destitute
widow. After marriage, the attitude of the respondent changed and she was
quarrelling with the petitioner for all and sundry. She has given wrong
information about her past life, including the dissolution of her earlier
marriage.
3. The said petition was contested by the respondent/appellant
herein, stating that the earlier marriage alleged in the petition was a child
marriage, while she was 16 years old. Under threat, the said Raja married her
and she gave birth to a child on 01.05.2004. In the Tsunami disaster, the
child died and a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs was given by the Government, as
compensation, which was received by her first husband - Raja. Second child
was born on 27.12.2005. Her first husband deserted her and his whereabouts
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:41:59 pm )
are not known. In the said circumstances, she came in contact with the
petitioner. The petitioner was informed of her past life and only with full
knowledge, the petitioner married her. He declared that her past marriage can
be dissolved at any time. Her first husband, who was not with her for a long
time, returned from Singapore and, thereafter, she legally dissolved the
marriage. A sum of Rs.1.00 lakh was given by him from out of the
compensation given by the Government for the death of the child. With that
money, she purchased land for the benefit of the second child. She gave birth
to a child on 25.09.2012 and she was happily living with the petitioner till
2014. Only on the intervention of the family members of the petitioner, the
petitioner got dissociated with her and threatened to divorce her. He also
misbehaved with the child and assaulted her. In this connection, a police
complaint was lodged and registered in C.S.R.No.253 of 2016. The parties
mounted the witness box and were examined as P.W.1 and R.W.1. In the
petition, the appellant herein marked 7 documents and the respondent
marked 12 documents.
4. The Family Court found that the marriage between the
petitioner and the respondent, which was solemnised on 20.09.2010, was hit
by Section 5 (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, since the earlier marriage of the
respondent with one Raja was legally dissolved only on 05.08.2011. Under
such circumstances, the Family Court modified the relief and declared the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:41:59 pm )
marriage, solemnised between the petitioner and the respondent on
20.09.2010, as null and void.
5. The present appeal is filed with a specific averment that the
respondent herein has wilfully suppressed the fact that earlier he filed a
petition for nullity of marriage on the same ground and withdrew it and
further knowing fully well that the earlier marriage got dissolved, he continued
to live with the appellant and gave birth to a child subsequent to the
dissolution of the earlier marriage, and that the Family Court has modified the
relief and declared the marriage as null and void without proper appreciation
of the pleadings.
6. This Court, on perusing the pleadings and evidence, finds that
it is true that the appellant had subsisting marriage with one Raja, when she
married the respondent on 20.09.2010, which was duly registered on
16.10.2010. However, her first marriage got dissolved on 05.08.2011 and,
even thereafter, the appellant and the respondent were continuously living as
wife and husband. It is also admitted by the respondent himself that Family
Card, Aadhaar Card and Birth Certificate of the child show that they both are
living as husband and wife for a long time. In such circumstances, the Family
Court, while considering the petition under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, had not analysed the evidence to ascertain whether there was
any cruelty caused by the appellant, warranting dissolution of the marriage.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:41:59 pm )
Instead, it declared the marriage as void, invoking Section 5 (i) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, ignoring the fact that after dissolution of the earlier marriage,
the parties lived as husband and wife continuously for more than five years
and also gave birth to a child.
7. The modification of the relief by the Family Court is an error
apparent on the face of the record, since the relationship between the
petitioner and the respondent as husband and wife continued even after
dissolution of the first marriage and the fact of giving birth to a child has
legalised their relationship as husband and wife.
8. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order
of the Family Court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Family
Court for fresh consideration. If the parties want to adduce additional
evidence, they are permitted to do so. The Family Court shall dispose of
H.M.O.P.No.1855 of 2019 within a period of six months. No costs.
Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.21176 of 2024 is closed.
(DR.G.J.,J.) (M.S.K.,J.)
17.09.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
dixit
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:41:59 pm )
To
V Additional Family Court,
Chennai.
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
AND
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
dixit
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:41:59 pm )
17.09.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:41:59 pm )
