[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Respondent/ vs D.Bharath on 9 January, 2026
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 18.12.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
CMA No. 2924 of 2017
And
C.M.P.No.17186 of 2017
V.Kasthuri
Wife of D.Bharath
... Respondent/Appellant
Vs
D.Bharath
Son of Dhandapani ...Petitioner/Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family
Courts Act 1984, against the Order and Decreetal order dated 02.01.2017 in
F.C.H.M.O.P.No. 83 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court at Dharmapuri.
***
For Appellant : Mr. A.S.Viajyaragavan
For Respondent : Mr. F.Terry Chellaraja
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 03:58:39 pm )
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)
The respondent in F.C.H.M.O.P.No. 83 of 2015 on the file of the
Family Court at Dharmapuri is the appellant herein.
2. F.C.H.M.O.P.No. 83 of 2015 had been filed by the respondent
under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking
dissolution of the marriage held between the appellant and the respondent on
23.03.1999.
3. By Judgment dated 02.01.2017, the said Petition was allowed with
costs thereby granting the decree of divorce. Challenging the same, the
present Appeal had been filed.
4. It is to be noted that during the pendency of the Appeal, a claim
was made by the appellant that the respondent, who is working as Assistant
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes at Erode had failed to pay the
maintenance amount and that a total balance due towards maintenance with
respect to the son and daughter is Rs.2,85,000/-. Quite apart from that it had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 03:58:39 pm )
been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that though there had
been a direction issued to the respondent to pay the maintenance as
directed, the respondent had failed to pay or deposit the maintenance
amount and also bear the education expenses of the children, who are
unmarried and are now pursuing higher studies in Canada and Australia.
5. In the petition in F.C.H.M.O.P.No. 83 of 2015, the respondent
contended that the marriage between him and the appellant took place on
26.03.1999 and they were blessed with a daughter and son. It was further
contended that the respondent was employed in the Commercial Tax
Department, and the appellant had also joined Government Service. It was
further contended that the appellant had filed H.M.O.P.No. 17 of 2014
before the Sub Court at Dharmapuri, which was later transferred to the
Family Court at Dharmapuri and re-numbered as F.C.H.M.O.P.No. 223 of
2014 seeking dissolution of marriage. That petition was dismissed by
Judgment dated 13.03.2015. It had been contended that the allegations
therein were false to the knowledge of the appellant. It was contended that
thereby the appellant had committed acts of cruelty by laying false
allegations against the respondent. It was under those circumstances that the
respondent had filed the petition seeking divorce.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 03:58:39 pm )
6. A counter had been filed by the appellant herein that the
respondent had abandoned the family and was living separately. It was
contended that the allegations raised in the earlier petition were not false. It
was further contended that the respondent did not share his monthly salary
towards the family expenses but spent time with his friends drinking and
leading a wayward life. He also caused mental harassment to the appellant
and also to the children. He did not take care of the children. It was
contended that the petition has been filed with malafide intentions and
therefore the petition should be dismissed.
7. During trial, the respondent examined himself as PW-1 and the
appellant examined herself as RW-1 and examined another witness as RW-2.
The copies of the pleadings in F.C.H.M.O.P.No. 223 of 2014 were marked
as Exs. P-4 and P-5 and the order copy was marked as Ex.P-3. The copy of
a complaint and FIR were marked as Ex.P-6 and the petition seeking
anticipatory bail was marked as Ex.P-7 and the order granting anticipatory
bail was marked as Ex.P-8. On the side of the respondents, an Out Patient
case sheet dated 25.09.2019 was marked as Ex.R-2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 03:58:39 pm )
8. On the basis of the evidence, the learned trial Judge found that
both the appellant and the respondent had unfortunately indulged in raising
allegations against each other and as a matter of fact, the appellant had
earlier filed a petition seeking divorce in the year 2014 on the ground of
cruelty. In that particular petition, she had raised an allegation that the
respondent was a womaniser and living a wayward life and his behaviour
was rude, insulting and quarrelsome. It had been stated that however the
said petition was dismissed for non prosecution. But the learned trial Judge
found that the allegations still remain and even in the counter affidavit, she
had raised the very same allegations as against the appellant. Taking into
consideration these facts, the learned trial Judge had allowed the petition
and had granted dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and the
respondent.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments pointed out
that the earlier petition has been filed seeking dissolution by the appellant
but however, the same had not been prosecuted to its logical end. The
learned counsel stated that the respondent had not complied with the
payment of monthly maintenance to the son and daughter as directed in the
maintenance proceedings. He contended that there were huge arrears
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 03:58:39 pm )
pending as on date. A memo of calculation had also been given.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that the
maintenance had been paid for the son till he attained the age of 18 years
and maintenance is paid to the daughter. The learned counsel stated that
both the children are studying abroad and that therefore, their education has
been taking care of by the respondent. With respect to the appeal, the
learned counsel contended that the appellant had filed an earlier application
seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty raising allegations against the
respondent and stated that even in the counter affidavit, she had again
reiterated the same allegations. The learned counsel stated that this fact thus
would establish that the ground of cruelty stood established and therefore
urged that this Court should dismiss the appeal.
11. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and
perused the materials available on records.
12. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent had taken
place on 26.03.1999. A daughter was born on 02.05.2000 and a son was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 03:58:39 pm )
born on 29.09.2004. The appellant had earlier filed H.M.O.P.No. 17 of 2014
before the Sub Court at Dharmapuri which was later transferred to the
Family Court at Dharmapuri and renumbered as F.C.H.M.O.P.No. 223 of
2014 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. She had alleged that the
respondent herein was addicted to alcohol and was living a wayward life
and was also having relationships with other women. A counter affidavit
had been filed by the respondent denying and disputing the said allegations.
The said petition was dismissed by order dated 13.03.2015 for default.
13. Thereafter, the respondent had filed F.C.H.M.O.P.No. 83 of 2015
again before the Family Court at Dharmapuri seeking divorce on the
grounds of cruelty. According to him, in the earlier petition, the appellant
had raised very serious allegations and had also given a complaint to the
Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri and an FIR had
also been registered in Crime No. 2 of 2016 against the respondent. The
respondent had to obtain anticipatory bail. It had been contended that all
these issues had very seriously affected him.
14. The fact that the appellant had filed a petition seeking divorce
raising allegations against the respondent had not been denied or disputed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 03:58:39 pm )
the learned counsel for the appellant.
15. As a matter of fact, the only focus of the learned counsel for the
appellant was that the respondent had not paid the maintenance amount as
directed. It had been contended that more than Rs.2/- lakhs is due and
payable towards the maintenance. But however, the appellant will have to
take steps in manner known to law for recovery of the maintenance amount.
It is a fact that the respondent is a public servant working in the Commercial
Tax Department. Naturally steps could be taken for recovery of the amount
from the employer.
16. So far as the grounds for divorce are concerned, it is seen that
there is extreme animosity between the parties.
17. The appellant had alleged that the respondent was a womaniser
and was addicted to alcohol and was living a wayward life. She had stated
these allegations in the earlier petition filed by her seeking divorce on the
ground of cruelty. She had reiterated the said statements in her counter
affidavit. Even in the deposition, she had again reiterated the same facts. It
is thus evident that the appellant herself is not interested in living with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 03:58:39 pm )
respondent. Though the respondent had denied all these allegations, he had
filed the petition seeking divorce on the ground that false allegations had
been raised against him stating that he was a womaniser and that he was
addicted to alcohol. We hold that these statements should have been made
with same responsibility by the appellant.
18. We hold that the learned trial Judge had come to a correct
conclusion that the marriage for all practical purposes had come to an end so
far as the appellant and the respondent are concerned. We are not inclined to
interfere with the said order. The Appeal Stands dismissed. We would
reiterate that the appellant is at liberty to proceed against the respondent and
his employer for recovery of the maintenance amount payable either
towards the appellant or towards the children.
19. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. No order as to costs.
[C.V.K., J.] [K.B., J.]
09.01.2026
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 03:58:39 pm )
Family Court at Dharmapuri
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
vsg
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 03:58:39 pm )
And
09.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 03:58:39 pm )
