Madras High Court
V.Ramalingam vs R.Chitradevi on 19 September, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.M.A.No.2542 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.M.A.No.2542 of 2016
V.Ramalingam .. Appellant
Vs.
R.Chitradevi .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Suit is filed under Section 19 of
Family Court Act, 1984, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
18.03.2016 in H.M.O.P.No.13 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Family
Court, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.K.N.Natarajan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Veeramani
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.13 of 2008 filed
under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:16:37 pm )
marriage on the ground of cruelty.
2. The respondent herein contested the matter contending that it
was the petitioner/husband who had subjected her to cruelty and was
living an adulterous life, which ultimately led his conviction by the trial
Court. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, which was later
modified to one year by the appellate Court.
3. It is further contended that the respondent/wife had filed a
petition in M.C.No.11 of 1997 before the Judicial Magistrate, seeking
maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month. Though, the Judicial Magistrate
allowed the petition and granted maintenance, the petitioner failed to
comply, allegedly on the false assurance that he would reunite with his
wife during the trial proceedings.
4. Both parties mounted the witness box and marked documents in
support of their respective case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:16:37 pm )
5. After considering the evidence, the Family Court, Coimbatore,
found that the marriage solemnized on 23.02.1994 had experienced
considerable distress and hardship. This included the filing of a criminal
complaint under Section 498 A of the IPC, which culminated in the
conviction of the petitioner/appellant herein.
6. Taking note of the said facts, the trial Court dismissed the
divorce petition stating that the long separation and irretrievable
breakdown of the marriage cannot be considered valid grounds for
divorce, especially when such separation and cruelty were due to the
conduct of the petitioner. The Court further observed that the petitioner
cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong.
7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the divorce petition, the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant. It is
contended that after the dismissal of the divorce petition by the trial
Court, the respondent has not come forward to reunite with the appellant.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that there is no issue for them and the original petition for divorce was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:16:37 pm )
instituted in the year 2008, which came to be dismissed on 18.03.2016.
The present appeal has been pending for the past eight years. Considering
these cumulative facts and circumstances, the marriage has irretrievably
broken down and has reached a stage of no return. It is therefore,
contended that the marital bond, which exists only on paper, should not
be continued and the appellant ought to be granted divorce in order to
move on with his life and choice.
9. It is further submitted that after the dismissal of the divorce
petition, the respondent instituted H.M.O.P.No.867 of 2016, before the
Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage
Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant contends that
this petition was an afterthought and no effort was made by the
respondent to reunite. The change in circumstances, it is argued, warrants
interference by this Court and a decree of divorce ought to be granted.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that the act of cruelty committed by the appellant have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:16:37 pm )
proved through court of law, resulting in his conviction under Section 498
A of IPC. No doubt, after dismissal of the divorce petition, the respondent
subsequently filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in
H.M.O.P.No.867 of 2016, later the conduct of the appellant found to be
incorrigible, the respondent thought fit not to pursue the restitution of
conjugal rights. It is also submitted that the respondent has, to date, not
received any maintenance, despite the order passed by the Judicial
Magistrate in the maintenance proceedings. Further, he would submit that
pending appeal, the appellant has married another lady by name Ajitha
and given birth to a female child.
11. On perusal of the records, this Court finds that certain
photographs were forwarded to the Registry by the respondent herein
through post. These include joint photographs of the appellant and the
respondent taken subsequent to the filing of the present appeal. On the
reverse of one of the photographs, there is an endorsement jointly made
by both the appellant and the respondent, stating that they have buried all
their differences and joined together and expressed their desire to live
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:16:37 pm )
together peacefully in the future.
12. The respondent, Mrs.Chitradevi, is present before this Court
today. The postal cover, along with photographs and the endorsement was
shown to her. She confirms that the endorsement was made during the
pendency of the maintenance proceedings and she had forwarded the
photographs to the Registry accompanied by a covering letter dated
01.07.2023, which has also been perused by this Court.
13. This Court is of the view that the appellant, who seeks
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, has not substantiated
the allegations with evidence. On the other hand, the respondent herein
who had earlier filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights following
the dismissal of the divorce petition, had not taken any steps to pursue the
remedy. It is also brought to the attention of this Court that there are
specific allegations against the appellant, stating that he has entered into
a second marriage with another lady while the first marriage in
subsistence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:16:37 pm )
14. On considering all these facts, even though there has been a
long period of separation between the parties, there is no element to
conclude that such separation has been continuous and uninterrupted, so
as to constitute a ground for divorce. In the said circumstances, the
Appeal is bound to be dismissed for want of proof that the appellant was
subjected to cruelty.
15. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands
dismissed. No costs.
[Dr.G.J., J.] & [M.J.R., J.]
19.09.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rpl
To
The Principal Family Court, Coimbatore.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN., J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:16:37 pm )
19.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:16:37 pm )
