[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Saravanaraj vs Nirmala on 9 January, 2026
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 29.10.2025
Pronounced on : 09.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
and
CMP(MD)No.4542 of 2019
CMA(MD)No.370 of 2019
Saravanaraj ... Appellant /Respondent
Vs.
Nirmala ... Respondent /Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the
Family Court Act, 1984, to set aside the common judgement and decree
dated 07.12.2018 and made in H.M.O.P.No.802 of 2016 on the file of
the learned Family Court, Madurai.
CMA(MD)No.371 of 2019
Saravanaraj ... Appellant /Petitioner
Vs.
Nirmala ...Respondent /Respondent
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the
Family Court Act, 1984, to set aside the common judgement and decree
dated 07.12.2018 and made in H.M.O.P.No.425 of 2017 on the file of
the learned Family Court, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Barathan
For Respondent : No appearance
COMMON JUDGMENT
Prologue:
Marriage in Indian society is not merely a civil contract but a
sacred union, carrying legal rights as well as emotional, social and
moral obligations. When spouses approach the matrimonial Court with
cross-claims, one seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of
cruelty, the other seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Court is
required to strike a careful balance between individual autonomy and
the statutory mandate to preserve the marital tie, wherever possible,
without compromising legal standards.
2. The present appeals arise out of a common judgment dated
27.11.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai, in
H.M.O.P. No.425 of 2017 (filed by the husband for divorce under
Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) and H.M.O.P. No.802
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
of 2016 (filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights under Section
9 of the Act).
3. The learned Family Court, by a detailed order, dismissed the
husband’s divorce petition and allowed the wife’s petition for restitution
of conjugal rights. Aggrieved, the husband has preferred C.M.A.(MD) No.
370 of 2019, and C.M.A.(MD) No.371 of 2019. Both appeals are
disposed of by this common judgment.
Case of the husband in H.M.O.P. No.425 of 2017 (Divorce
petition):
4. The marriage between the appellant/husband Ramesh and the
respondent/wife Nirmala was solemnised on 09.12.2012 at Ameer
Mahal, Jayankondam, Ariyalur District, according to Hindu rites and
customs, in the presence of relatives and friends of both families. After
marriage, the couple resided in Chennai in a rented house. The
husband was employed in Chennai. Within a few weeks, he allegedly
realised that the respondent wanted to lead a “luxurious and lavish”
lifestyle as she had grown up in Mumbai, and that she felt disappointed
with his financial position and background.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
5. According to him, the respondent frequently spoke of the
“modern and luxurious” life she led at Mumbai, expressed that she had
imagined marrying into a wealthy family, and felt that her “imaginary
and luxurious life was ruined”. The husband states that he had
borrowed money for marriage expenses and requested her to be
economical till the loan was repaid, but she allegedly refused to
understand his financial constraints.
6. He further alleges that when he requested her to come to his
native place on 01.01.2013 and again during Pongal holidays, she
showed reluctance, remained upset, and kept aloof from his parents
and relatives despite repeated requests to mingle and speak with them.
The husband’s case is that the respondent repeatedly threatened that
she would commit suicide and on many occasions “tried to do so”,
causing him constant fear and mental agony.
7. The husband contends that the respondent insisted that he
must sever ties with his parents, not contact them and not send money
to them, stating that only then she would live with him; otherwise, she
would desert him. According to him, on 14.07.2014, the respondent,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
without his knowledge or consent, allegedly left the matrimonial home
with all her belongings, including dresses, jewellery and vessels, leaving
only the thali chain in the almirah. When questioned by the house
owner, she purportedly stated that her employment was transferred to
another place and that the husband would continue to reside there.
8. It is the specific case of the husband that after she left, he
made several attempts through elders and relatives to bring her back
and “get a new leaf” in the relationship, but all such attempts failed. He
therefore filed H.M.O.P. No.425 of 2017 before the learned Family
Court, Madurai, seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty
under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act.
Case of the wife in H.M.O.P. No.802 of 2016 (Petition for
restitution of conjugal rights):
9. The factum of marriage on 09.12.2012 is admitted. She states
that at the time of marriage, her parents gave 25 sovereigns of jewellery
to her and 3 sovereigns to the husband; Rs.50,000/- at betrothal and
Rs.50,000/- after marriage as dowry, besides household articles. She
asserts that after marriage, the couple lived in Chennai for about two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
months. The husband, being employed at Chennai, allegedly demanded
her entire salary once she joined employment. She initially worked for
about 1½ months at Global Health City Hospital, and thereafter, on his
initiative, attended an interview at Guindy and worked there for
approximately 1½ years.
10. The wife alleges serious dowry demands and cruelty that the
husband and his mother repeatedly demanded more cash and jewellery;
that on the wedding day, the husband’s family demanded Rs.1,00,000/-
from her parents, who could only pay Rs.10,000/- immediately and
later Rs.50,000/- through the respondent’s uncle; that holidays like
New Year and Pongal also saw fresh demands and humiliating
comments.
11. She alleges that the husband habitually consumed alcohol,
verbally abused her, calling her “worse than a prostitute,” commenting
on her complexion and appearance, comparing her with his alleged ex-
girlfriend, locking her inside the house at night and leaving, frequently
telling her to remove the mangalsutra and go back to her parental
home.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
12. It is her specific allegation that she became pregnant twice.
On both occasions, the husband and his family insisted on abortion,
threatening that he would commit suicide or abandon her if she did not
comply. She claims that both pregnancies were terminated under
compulsion. The wife further states that the husband’s mother
repeatedly threatened that she would ensure her son divorced the
respondent and marry him to a “wealthier and more beautiful” woman
and kept demanding cash, diamonds and articles for future
grandchildren.
13. She avers that the petitioner and his family ill-treated and
harassed her to such an extent that she was compelled to leave the
matrimonial home and shift to a hostel with some belongings. When her
relatives tried to mediate, the husband allegedly lodged a police
complaint against her uncle, portraying him as a threat, and prevented
her entry into the matrimonial home.
14. She states that she later suffered from typhoid and was
admitted to hospital twice, but the husband and his family showed no
concern for her health. Despite all this, she asserts that she does not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
want to leave the petitioner, as he is responsible for the torture she
suffered, and she is anxious about her future and social stigma. Hence,
she seeks restitution of conjugal rights.
15. The learned Family Court, Madurai, conducted a joint trial of
H.M.O.P. No.425 of 2017 (husband’s divorce petition) and H.M.O.P. No.
802 of 2016 (wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights).The
husband, who is the petitioner in H.M.O.P. No.425 of 2017 and
respondent in H.M.O.P. No.802 of 2016, was examined as P.W.1 and
marked Exs.P1 to P4. The wife, who is the petitioner in H.M.O.P. No.802
of 2016 and respondent in H.M.O.P. No.425 of 2017, was examined as
R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R10. She subsequently produced further
documents including bank passbooks and contest-related documents.
Gist of the trial court’s common judgment:
16. The learned Family Court framed the following points for
consideration:
(i) Whether the petitioner/husband in H.M.O.P. No.425 of 2017 is
entitled to a decree of divorce as prayed for?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
(ii) Whether the petitioner/wife in H.M.O.P. No.802 of 2016 is
entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights?
(iii) To what other reliefs, if any, are the parties entitled?
17. With regard to the husband’s case, the learned Family Court
minutely analysed his pleadings and evidence and found several
material contradictions:
Though in the petition he claimed that immediately after marriage
they started living at a rented house at Narasingapuram, Maduvinagar,
Guindy, in cross-examination he admitted that they first lived at Door
No.1, Jeeva Nagar, 1st Cross Street, Pallikaranai, and that the Ooty trip
and certain intermediate stays were not disclosed as pleaded. He
admitted that the respondent worked at Global Hospital only up to
11.02.2013 and that he himself later took her to another job at Guindy,
contradicting his own case that she continued at Global Health City.
The allegation that she refused to visit his native place or meet his
parents was not corroborated by any independent witness.
18. On the allegation of “luxurious and lavish” lifestyle, the
learned Family Court took note of Ex.R7, relating to the respondent’s
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
father’s employment as Jr. Aircraft Equipment Operator at Mumbai
airport, showing a basic pay of Rs.10,375/- as on 30.01.2014.
Considering that he had three daughters and lived in Mumbai, the
Court observed that it was improbable for the respondent to have been
brought up in such luxury as to demand an opulent lifestyle from the
husband. The allegation was held to be unsubstantiated and
exaggerated.
19. As regards marriage expenses, the husband admitted in
cross-examination that he had not produced any document to
substantiate his claim that he spent Rs.12,00,000/- for the marriage or
that he borrowed Rs.7,00,000/- for that purpose. The learned Family
Court held that his financial grievance was not a proven ground of
cruelty.
20. On the issue of the wife’s alleged employment at Global Health
City and her alleged residence there, the Court examined Ex.R1 –
identity card and the husband’s admissions. It found that, as on
22.12.2014, when he filed an earlier HMOP for divorce at Chennai, the
respondent was not residing at Global Health City or at Medavakkam;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
yet the husband had shown a false address for the respondent.
Summons were returned as “not residing”, leading to paper publication.
The Court drew an adverse inference that the husband deliberately gave
a wrong address to proceed ex parte.
21. The allegation of suicide attempts was also not proved. The
husband admitted that he had not stated in the petition as to who
rescued her, or the manner, date or time of any attempt. No medical or
other corroborative evidence was produced. The Court held this
allegation to be a bald assertion.
22. The claim that the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial
home on 14.07.2014 with all belongings, leaving only the thali in the
almirah, was not proved. No landlord or other witness was examined to
support this narrative. The learned Family Court emphasised that the
burden was on the husband, as petitioner for divorce, to establish
cruelty and desertion, which he failed to discharge.
23. The husband’s assertion of making reconciliation efforts was
also found wanting. He admitted that he had not mentioned in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
earlier HMOP or in his present proof affidavit any specific details of
panchayat or mediation; no such elders were examined. On the
contrary, Ex.R2 – copy of email sent by the wife to the Chief Minister’s
Special Cell – indicated that she was still living with her parents in the
hope that he would take her back, which the Court treated as proof of
her desire to resume cohabitation.
24. On jurisdiction, the husband contended that the wife was
residing at Mumbai and had left her job. Therefore, the petition for
restitution of conjugal rights at Madurai was not maintainable. The
learned Family Court examined Ex.R5 and Ex.R6 – HDFC and SBI
passbooks in the wife’s name. Ex.R6 showed issuance on 06.02.2014
with a Madurai address. The Court held that she was residing at
Madurai when she filed H.M.O.P. No.802 of 2016, thereby affirming
territorial jurisdiction.
25. The learned Family Court ultimately held that the husband
failed to prove cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a), whereas the wife had
established her willingness to live with him, as evidenced by filing
H.M.O.P. No.802 of 2016 and her email. It dismissed H.M.O.P. No.425
of 2017 and allowed H.M.O.P. No.802 of 2016, granting a decree for
restitution of conjugal rights and directing the husband to join the wife
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
within two months.
Grounds of appeal:
26. In C.M.A.(MD) No.370 of 2019 and C.M.A.(MD).No.371 of
2019, the husband contends inter alia that the judgment and decree are
against law, weight of evidence and probabilities. The Court below was
biased in favour of the wife and wrongly relied on her defence and
extraneous materials. The learned Trial Court ought to have rejected the
wife’s case that she left the home due to threats, especially since she
allegedly took all belongings but left the thali in the almirah. The
learned Family Court erred in rejecting his version regarding marriage
expenses and borrowing of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Court erred in relying on
Ex.R1 identity card, which was never shown by the wife during
subsistence of marriage. The Court erred in holding that the wife did
not desire a luxurious life merely because her father’s income was
meagre. The Court wrongly drew adverse inference from the earlier
HMOP filed at Chennai, particularly about the address. The Court failed
to see that the wife’s conduct was quarrelsome, disrespectful to his
parents, involved frequent desertion from the matrimonial home, and
made continued marital life impossible. The decree for restitution of
conjugal rights was wrongly granted, and directing him to live with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
wife within two months was unsustainable.
Submissions:
27. The learned counsel for the husband reiterated the pleadings
and urged that the wife was not interested in marital life, insisted on
luxuries, and constantly demeaned the husband and his parents. She
repeatedly threatened suicide and then left with all belongings, leaving
the thali behind clearly indicated an intention to sever the marital bond.
Long separation and her conduct cumulatively constituted mental
cruelty. Reliance was placed on Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli1, to
contend that where a marriage has irretrievably broken down, a decree
of divorce should follow. The learned Family Court erred in disbelieving
the husband’s testimony and in drawing adverse inference from the
earlier HMOP at Chennai.
28. However none appeared on the side of wife.
29. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully
perused the materials available on record.
1 (2006) 4 SCC 558
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
Points for determination:
30. In the light of the rival submissions and the record, the
following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the appellant/husband has established that the
respondent/wife treated him with such cruelty, within the meaning of
Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as to entitle him to a
decree of divorce?
(ii) Whether the respondent/wife has established her entitlement
to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act?
(iii) Whether the learned Family Court’s common judgment in
H.M.O.P. Nos.425 of 2017 and 802 of 2016 calls for interference in
these appeals?
Analysis:
31. The concept of “cruelty” in matrimonial law is now well
settled. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that mental cruelty must be assessed in the light of the
parties’ social status and the entire factual matrix, and that no
straitjacket formula can be laid down. Persistent abusive and
2 2007) 4 SCC 511
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
humiliating conduct, false allegations, sustained neglect or indifference,
or conduct which makes cohabitation impossible may amount to
cruelty, but trivial irritations and normal wear and tear of married life
cannot.
32. As regards irretrievable breakdown of marriage, in Naveen
Kohli v. Neelu Kohli3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recommended
legislative recognition of irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce
and, in that specific case, granted divorce under Article 142. However,
the Court subsequently clarified umpteen times, that irretrievable
breakdown is not an independent statutory ground and that High
Courts cannot dissolve a marriage solely on that basis in the absence of
statutory provision. Similar emphasis appears in Savitri Pandey v.
Prem Chandra Pandey4.
33. Thus, this Court, exercising jurisdiction under the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, cannot grant divorce merely on the ground that the
parties have been separated for long or that the marriage appears
emotionally dead, unless the statutory grounds, such as cruelty or
3 (2006) 4 SCC 558
4 (2002) 2 SCC 73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
desertion, are duly proved.
34. The husband’s allegations may be grouped broadly into:
(i) Wife’s alleged desire for a luxurious life and disdain for his
financial status and parents;
(ii) Alleged refusal to visit or mix with his parental family;
(iii) Alleged threats and attempts to commit suicide;
(iv) Alleged unilateral desertion by leaving the matrimonial home
with belongings; and
(v) Alleged absence of any intention to resume cohabitation.
35. Firstly, the learned Family Court has carefully analysed Ex.R7
(service particulars and pay of the respondent’s father) and the
husband’s own admissions. Given the modest pay of the respondent’s
father, residing in Mumbai with three daughters, the allegation that she
insisted on living an extravagant lifestyle beyond the husband’s means
appears inherently improbable. Moreover, no neighbour, friend or
relative was examined to show specific instances of such insistence.
This Court finds no perversity in the learned Family Court holding this
allegation to be unsubstantiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
36. Secondly, the husband alleged that the respondent remained
aloof and refused to speak with his parents during visits. But again, no
independent witness was examined not even his parents or relatives
who allegedly witnessed the behaviour. His own cross-examination
reveals inconsistencies regarding where they resided immediately after
marriage and when they visited the native place. In matrimonial
litigation, especially where serious relief of divorce is sought, Courts
require clear, cogent and consistent evidence; that standard is not met
here.
37. Thirdly, on the ground of threats of suicide is concerned, the
husband conceded in cross-examination that he had not mentioned in
his petition who allegedly rescued the wife, nor provided date, time or
method of the alleged attempts. No medical record or contemporaneous
complaint was produced. As observed in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya
Ghosh5, stray allegations without evidentiary support cannot be
elevated to cruelty. This Court concurs with the learned Family Court
that this head of cruelty is not proved.
38. Fourthly, on the ground of desertion is concerned, the
5 2007) 4 SCC 511
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
husband states that the wife left with all belongings on 14.07.2014,
leaving the thali in the almirah, and informed the landlord that she was
transferred. Yet neither the landlord nor any other independent witness
has been examined. The burden of proof for cruelty and desertion lies
squarely on the petitioner seeking divorce. In the absence of
corroboration, and in the light of the wife’s consistent narrative of being
driven out due to harassment, the learned Family Court rightly declined
to accept the husband’s unilateral version.
39. Fifthly, as far as the intention of the wife not to resume
cohabitation is concerned, the record tells against the husband rather
than in his favour. It is the wife who filed H.M.O.P. No.802 of 2016 for
restitution of conjugal rights, and also sent an email to the Chief
Minister’s Special Cell expressing her desire to live with the husband
(Ex.R2). In contrast, in his cross-examination, the husband candidly
admitted that even if the respondent now rectified her alleged mistakes,
he is not willing to live with her. This admission completely undercuts
his plea that he made sincere reconciliation efforts.
40. In K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa6, the Hon'ble Supreme
6 (2013) 5 SCC 226
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
Court held that false complaints and repeated unfounded allegations
can amount to mental cruelty. In the present case, however, it is the
husband’s unproved allegations which are more suspect, whereas the
wife’s counter-allegations of dowry demand and harassment fit a
consistent pattern supported by her evidence. There is no police
complaint proved from her side which has been held false so as to visit
cruelty upon her.
41. In the considered view of this Court, the learned Family Court
has undertaken a proper appreciation of evidence, and its conclusion
that cruelty by the wife is not established is in consonance with the
principles laid down in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh7 and Savitri
Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey8. No ground is made out to interfere
with such finding.
42. It is true that the parties have been living separately for
several years. However, as already noted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has repeatedly clarified that irretrievable breakdown is not, by itself, a
statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and that such a
7 2007) 4 SCC 511
8 (2002) 2 SCC 73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
relief is ordinarily exercised only by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under
Article 142 .
43. The learned Family Court, therefore, committed no error in
declining to treat long separation alone as a ground to “snap the marital
tie”, particularly when the husband failed to prove cruelty or desertion
and the wife positively sought restitution of conjugal rights.
44. This Court, exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Act,
cannot convert a long, troubled marriage into a case of irretrievable
breakdown absent statutory grounds. To do so would amount to
legislating from the Bench, which is impermissible.
45. Turning to the wife’s petition under Section 9, the essential
requisites are: (i) existence of a valid marriage; (ii) withdrawal of one
party from the society of the other; and (iii) absence of any reasonable
cause for such withdrawal. The factum of marriage is admitted. The
husband himself pleads that the wife left the matrimonial home and has
been residing away. The key question, therefore, is whether she has
withdrawn without reasonable cause, and whether she is genuinely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
willing to resume cohabitation.
46. The learned Family Court has carefully analysed the pleadings
and the evidence, including Ex.R2 (email to the Chief Minister’s Cell),
and concluded that the wife has consistently expressed her readiness to
live with the husband. Indeed, the very filing of H.M.O.P. No.802 of
2016 is a clear indicator of her intention.
47. On the other hand, the husband’s categorical statement in
cross-examination that he is unwilling to live with her, even if she
corrects herself, fortifies the inference that it is he, and not the wife,
who is resisting cohabitation. This strengthens the wife’s case for
restitution and simultaneously weakens his case for divorce. As regards
territorial jurisdiction, Ex.R6 – SBI passbook – shows that the wife was
residing at Madurai since 06.02.2014, much prior to the filing of
H.M.O.P. No.802 of 2016. The plea that she is “really” resident in
Mumbai and that she manipulated jurisdiction is unsupported by any
cogent material. This Court finds no infirmity in the learned Family
Court’s conclusion that H.M.O.P. No.802 of 2016 was properly
instituted in Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
48. Accordingly, the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in
favour of the wife is supported by evidence and in conformity with
Section 9 of the Act. No ground is made out to interfere with the same
in appeal.
49. On a comprehensive re-appreciation of the entire evidence,
this Court is satisfied that
(a) The husband has failed to establish cruelty by the wife within
the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act;
(b) The plea of irretrievable breakdown founded merely on long
separation cannot be entertained by this Court as a standalone ground
for divorce, in the absence of statutory provision;
(c) The wife has, on the other hand, established her willingness to
resume cohabitation and has validly sought restitution of conjugal
rights; and
(d) The learned Family Court, Madurai, has correctly appreciated
the facts and applied the law; its judgment does not suffer from
perversity, misreading of evidence, or misapplication of legal principles.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
50. Interference in appellate jurisdiction under Section 19 of the
Family Courts Act, 1984, is called for only when the findings of the
learned Family Court are perverse or contrary to law. On the contrary,
the impugned common judgment is well reasoned and supported by
evidence and authority.
51. In the result, C.M.A.(MD) No.370 of 2019 and 371 of 2019
filed by the husband, stands dismissed.
52. The common judgment and decree dated 27.11.2018 passed
by the Family Court, Madurai, in H.M.O.P. No.425 of 2017 and
H.M.O.P. No.802 of 2016 are confirmed. No order as to costs in both the
appeals. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Epilogue:
53. Matrimonial litigation often brings to Court relationships that
are frayed more by wounded egos and entrenched positions than by any
single dramatic event. The statutory grounds for severing a marital
bond must, however, be strictly proved; a Court cannot dissolve a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
marriage merely because one spouse feels the relationship has become
untenable.In the present case, while the marriage has unquestionably
undergone strain, the husband has not established cruelty in the legal
sense. On the other hand, the wife’s willingness to resume cohabitation
stands judicially recorded. If the parties, despite this judgment, still
choose not to rebuild their relationship, that is a matter of personal
choice; but such choice cannot be substituted for statutory grounds
under the Hindu Marriage Act.
54. The Court can only apply the law as it stands. Within that
framework, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals must fail and the same
are accordingly dismissed.
[P.V.,J.] [L.V.G.,J.]
09.01.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
Sml
To
The Family Court, Madurai.
Copy to
The Section Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 & 371 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
AND
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.,
Sml
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.370 and 371 of 2019
09.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
