[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
A.Ramesh vs N.Rama Swathika on 9 January, 2026
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 06.11.2025
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.379 & 380 of 2019
A.Ramesh ... Appellant /Respondent
Vs.
N.Rama Swathika
... Respondent / Petitioner
PRAYER in CMA(MD)No.379 of 2019: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, to set aside the
judgment and decree passed in H.M.O.P.No.921 of 2018 on the file of
the learned Family Court, Madurai, dated 02.04.2019.
PRAYER in CMA(MD)No.380 of 2019: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, to set aside the
judgment and decree passed in H.M.O.P.No.943 of 2018 on the file of
the learned Family Court, Madurai, dated 02.04.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan,
For Mr.B.Jameel Arasu
For Respondent : M/s.K.Shwathini,
For Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai,
For Mr.T.Selvakumaran
1/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of a common
judgment passed by the learned Family Court, Madurai, in H.M.O.P.
Nos.943 of 2018 and 921 of 2018. By the said common judgment, the
Family Court dismissed H.M.O.P. No.943 of 2018, filed by the husband,
Ramesh, seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, and allowed H.M.O.P. No.921 of 2018, filed by the wife,
Rama Swathika, seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9
of the Act.
2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition for divorce and the
grant of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife,
the husband is before this Court in the present appeals. Since both
appeals arise out of a common judgment, involve the same parties and
raise common questions, they are disposed of by this common
judgment.
Prologue:
3. Marriage under Hindu law is treated not merely as a contract
but as a sacrament and a social institution built upon mutual trust,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
shared responsibilities and companionship. The jurisdiction of a Family
Court, and in appeal this Court, is not confined to adjudicating disputes
in an adversarial sense but extends to examining whether the statutory
thresholds for dissolution of such a relationship are truly satisfied.
4. Allegations of cruelty and desertion often emanate from the
tensions of early married life competing expectations regarding
employment and higher studies, economic pressures, geographical
separation on account of postings, and the pervasive influence of elders
on both sides. While mental cruelty may assume subtle forms and may
not always admit of direct proof, it has nonetheless to be established on
a preponderance of probabilities by clear, cogent and consistent
material.
5. Equally, when one spouse, in spite of differences and
misunderstandings, expresses a continuing willingness to cohabit and
preserve the marriage, the Court is required to be circumspect and slow
in irretrievably snapping the marital bond in the absence of clear legal
grounds. The power to dissolve a marriage cannot be exercised on mere
impressions of incompatibility or the ebb and flow of ordinary marital
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
discord.
6. The present case concerns a marriage of short duration,
conception within a brief period, separation soon thereafter, and
competing narratives, on the one hand, that the wife abandoned the
matrimonial home and wilfully refused to resume cohabitation. On the
other, that the husband drifted away under the influence of his parents
and declined to receive back the wife and the child. The learned Family
Court, on an elaborate appraisal of the entire evidence, rejected the plea
of cruelty and granted restitution of conjugal rights. The question before
this Court is whether such findings call for interference in exercise of
appellate jurisdiction.
Case of the Husband / Appellant in H.M.O.P. No.943 of 2018
– Petition for Divorce:
7. The marriage between the appellant-husband, Ramesh, and the
respondent-wife, Rama Swathika, was solemnised on 09.06.2016 at
Arya’s Marriage Hall, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli, as per Hindu rites
and customs.According to the husband, at the time of marriage, the
respondent’s parents presented her with 50 sovereigns of gold jewellery
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. The husband, in turn, tied a thali
of 9 sovereigns around her neck and presented her with a 3/4 sovereign
gold ring.
8. After the marriage, the spouses initially lived in the husband’s
house. The husband was employed as a doctor at the Government
Medical College Hospital, Thoothukudi. The husband’s case is that from
the very next day of the marriage, the wife insisted that she must either
go for employment or pursue higher studies, and that if she was not
permitted to study further, she must at least be allowed to take up a
job. He asserts that this insistence continued even when he rejoined
duty at Thoothukudi on 23.06.2016 after availing marriage leave.
9. At the instance of the wife, the husband claims that, on
12.08.2016, he arranged employment for her at Apollo Hospital, Karur,
so as to satisfy her desire to work. The husband further states that on
25.08.2016, at about 7.00 p.m., the wife’s father came to their
residence at Karur and abused his parents in filthy language,
questioning why they were sending his daughter for work and alleging
that the husband was earning through his daughter’s salary. According
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
to the husband, this episode caused much humiliation to him and his
parents.
10. On 28.08.2016, when the husband returned home around
7.00 a.m., the wife complained of ill-health. He took her to Apollo
Hospital, Karur, where medical examination revealed that she was
pregnant. He alleges that, very afternoon, the wife quarrelled with him,
declared that she intended to terminate the pregnancy so that she could
continue either her studies or job, and insisted on the same, thereby
causing him severe mental agony.
11. On 30.08.2016, the wife is alleged to have said that she did
not wish to stay in Karur, that she wanted to immediately go to her
parental home, that she did not want to live with the husband and that
she would commit suicide if not sent. On the next morning, 31.08.2016,
she allegedly reiterated that unless she was taken to her parental home,
she would not continue the pregnancy. The husband asserts that, as
the wife was adamant and in order to avoid any untoward incident in
the matrimonial home, he took her to her parental house at Tirunelveli
on 31.08.2016 and left her there.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
12. On the next morning, according to him, he telephoned the
wife, but she did not answer. He claims that he thereafter made several
calls and personal visits, repeatedly requesting her to return to Karur.
However, she refused to speak with him or to resume cohabitation. He
further pleads that when his parents and relatives visited the
respondent’s house to mediate and bring her back, they were
humiliated, insulted and sent away.
13. The husband next states that, as per custom, he and his
family proposed to conduct the Valaikappu / Seemantham ceremony.
On 04.01.2017, he and his relatives allegedly went to the respondent’s
house, where the respondent’s father initially quarrelled but later
agreed to the function, and consequently, the wife was taken to
Manavalakurichi on 07.01.2017. On 11.01.2017, the Valaikappu
ceremony was conducted at Kathirvel Marriage Hall, Meenakshipuram,
Nagercoil. He alleges that the wife initially refused to participate but
later joined the function after persuasion, and thereafter returned with
all her jewels to her parental home.
14. It is the further case of the husband that on 02.04.2017, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
wife delivered a female child, but neither he nor his parents were
informed by the respondent’s family. He claims that he came to know
about the birth only three days later through a friend, and that he was
deeply embarrassed as he could not even publicly announce the birth of
his child. On 07.04.2017, the husband states that he and his parents
went to Tirunelveli to see the child. According to him, the respondent’s
parents spoke to them in an indecent and abusive manner outside the
house and did not allow them inside or permit him to see the child,
thereby causing great humiliation and mental cruelty.
15. He alleges that despite his repeated attempts, the respondent
has wilfully deserted him since 31.08.2016, refused to live as a dutiful
wife and, along with her parents, has caused him severe mental agony.
As there was no conducive atmosphere for marital life, he initially filed a
divorce petition in H.M.O.P. No.136 of 2017 before the learned Family
Court, Karur, which, upon transfer, came to be renumbered as
H.M.O.P. No.943 of 2018 before the learned Family Court, Madurai. The
husband pleads that the conduct, attitude and ill-treatment of the
respondent amount to mental cruelty within the meaning of Section
13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and that, in any event, there
is no possibility of reunion. He, therefore, asserts that he is entitled to a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
decree of divorce.
Case of the Wife / Respondent / Defence in H.M.O.P. No.943
of 2018 and Petition in H.M.O.P. No.921 of 2018 – Restitution of
Conjugal Rights:
16. The wife filed a detailed counter affidavit in the divorce
petition and an independent petition in H.M.O.P. No.921 of 2018
seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The wife does not dispute the date
of marriage, the place, or the fact of the husband’s employment. She
states that she entered the marriage with great expectations, performed
her marital obligations dutifully and conceived in the course of the
marital relationship.
17. According to her, far from being pleased at the pregnancy, the
husband and his parents were unhappy when they came to know of her
conception. She alleges that the husband’s parents were more
interested in her earning and insisted that she should go for
employment, notwithstanding her pregnancy. She states that, under the
pressure and compulsion of the husband and his parents, she joined as
a doctor in a private hospital at Karur on 12.08.2016, despite her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
physical weakness on account of pregnancy.
18. She alleges that the husband’s parents entertained an idea
that, since the husband was working in Thoothukudi Government
Medical College, by posting her at Karur, they could keep some distance
between the couple and at the same time ensure her earning capacity.
The wife states that when her father went to Karur on 26.08.2016 to
enquire about her well-being, the husband’s father allegedly pressed her
pregnant abdomen and threatened that if she did not abort the foetus,
he would separate the couple. Shocked by this, the wife and her father
tried to reason with him, but the husband and his parents remained
obstinate.
19. The wife further states that due to her physical condition, the
husband took her to her parental home on 31.08.2016, telling her to
take rest for a few days and assuring that he would come and take her
back. However, she asserts, he never returned thereafter to bring her
back. She and her father, she says, made several attempts to contact
the husband and his parents over phone, requesting him to take her
back, but all such attempts failed. Regarding the Valaikappu /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
Seemantham ceremony, the wife states that her father and relatives
held several rounds of talks with the husband and his parents. She
states that they agreed to conduct the function only on the condition
that her father’s name should not be printed in the invitation. For the
sake of his daughter’s marital life, her father reluctantly agreed.
20. She states that, as per the talks, she was taken on
07.01.2017 to the husband’s grandfather’s house at Manavalakurichi
and that on 11.01.2017, the Valaikappu ceremony was held at Kathirvel
Marriage Hall, Vadiveeswaram / Meenakshipuram, Nagercoil. After the
function, she was again taken back to her parental home. After
returning to her mother’s house, the wife asserts that she made several
attempts to contact the husband through phone calls and text
messages, but he deliberately avoided communication.
21. When she was admitted for delivery, her father, she says, tried
to inform the husband and his parents through calls and messages, but
none of them responded. She states that she delivered a female child on
02.04.2017, and even after being informed, the husband did not come
to see the child. The wife asserts that the husband, misguided by his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
parents, has separated himself from her and that he filed the divorce
petition based on false and fabricated allegations.
22. In her petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.
No.921 of 2018, she reiterates that it was the husband’s family who
initiated the marriage talks; that there was no dowry demand from her
side; that she has at all times been ready and willing to live with the
husband; and that it is only under the wrong influence of his parents
that the husband has chosen to abandon her and the child. She
specifically asserts that she continues to be willing even now to live with
the husband and, therefore, prays for a decree directing the husband to
resume cohabitation with her.
Gist of the trial court’s common judgment:
23. Both H.M.O.P. Nos.943 of 2018 (divorce) and 921 of 2018
(restitution of conjugal rights) were jointly tried. On 20.11.2018, the
parties filed a joint memo for common trial. Evidence was recorded in
H.M.O.P. No.943 of 2018 and treated as common for both petitions. For
convenience, the Family Court referred to Ramesh as the petitioner
(husband) and to Rama Swathika as the respondent (wife).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
24. On the side of the husband / petitioner, he examined himself
as P.W.1, one Arumugam was examined as P.W.2, and one Shankar
was examined as P.W.3. Exs.P1 to P5 were marked, including the
marriage invitation, photographs and Valaikappu photographs.
25. On the side of the wife / respondent, she examined herself as
R.W.1, one Narayanan was examined as R.W.2, and one Subramanian
was examined as R.W.3. Exs.R1 and R2, including the Seemantham
invitation and cover, were marked.
26. The learned Family Court framed the following issues for
consideration in the two petitions:
(i) Whether the petitioner in H.M.O.P. No.943 of 2018 (husband) is
entitled to the relief of divorce as prayed for?
(ii) Whether the petitioner in H.M.O.P. No.921 of 2018 (wife) is
entitled to the relief of restitution of conjugal rights as prayed for?
(iii) What other reliefs, if any, are the parties entitled to?
27. The learned Family Court noted that the marriage on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
09.06.2016, the employment of the husband in Government Medical
College Hospital, Thoothukudi, the wife’s brief employment at Apollo
Hospital, Karur, the Valaikappu / Seemantham on 11.01.2017, the
birth of a female child on 02.04.2017 and the fact that the parties are
living separately, were all admitted. The learned Family Court
catalogued the grounds taken by the husband for divorce, namely, the
insistence on job / studies, the alleged abusive visit of the wife’s father
on 25.08.2016, the alleged demand to terminate pregnancy, alleged
threats of suicide, alleged refusal to return to Karur and to resume
cohabitation, non-intimation of delivery and alleged humiliation on
07.04.2017, and evaluated each allegation with reference to oral and
documentary evidence.
28. On the alleged insistence of the wife for a job / higher studies
from the date of marriage, the learned Family Court held that such
expression of desire, even if made, is natural between newly married
spouses and does not, by itself, amount to cruelty or mental agony.
With regard to the alleged incident of 25.08.2016 involving the wife’s
father abusing the husband’s parents at Karur, the learned Family
Court found that the incident was said to be within the personal
knowledge of the husband’s father (P.W.2) and not the husband himself;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
that the wife and her side completely denied the abusive portion; that
no specific question was put to the wife in cross-examination about that
incident; that no independent witnesses were examined; and that there
were inconsistencies between P.W.1 and P.W.2 as to the exact words
spoken. The Court, therefore, held that the abusive incident was not
proved.
29. On the allegation that the wife expressed an intention to
terminate the pregnancy on 28.08.2016 to pursue work / studies, the
learned Family Court observed that the wife had carried the pregnancy
to full term and delivered a child on 02.04.2017, that if she truly
intended to terminate the pregnancy, she had ample opportunity after
returning to her parental home on 31.08.2016, and that there was no
material to show that she took any step in that direction. The Court
held that the allegation about insisting upon termination of pregnancy
was not believable.
30. On the allegation of threats of suicide and insistence to be
taken to her parents’ house on 31.08.2016, the learned Family Court
found that leaving a pregnant woman at her parental home shortly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
before confinement was consistent with customary practice and rejected
the husband’s version that he left her there only because she
threatened suicide.
31. On the allegation that the husband made repeated calls and
personal visits after 31.08.2016 and that the wife refused to speak or to
return, the learned Family Court noted that no dates, call records,
messages or other corroborative material were produced. Moreover,
from P.W.2, no independent witness was examined, and that these
assertions were not proved.
32. As regards the Valaikappu / Seemantham, the Court noted
Ex.P1 (invitation), in which the names of the wife’s parents did not
appear. P.W.1’s explanation that the omission was because it was “our
family’s special occasion” was not accepted. The Court found it more
probable that the husband’s family insisted that the wife’s father’s
name be omitted, as alleged by the wife. Contradictions between P.W.1
and P.W.2 as to who first went to invite and bring the wife, coupled with
the absence of supporting witnesses, led the Court to hold that the
husband’s allegation of abusive and reluctant conduct by the wife’s
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
parents in relation to the function was not proved.
33. On the question of non-intimation of the child’s birth, the
petition stated that the husband came to know of the child’s birth three
days later through the wife’s friend. In cross-examination, the husband
admitted that it was one Dr.Brinda, his own friend, who informed him
and that he knew her from 2016, but he had not mentioned her name
in the petition. The learned Family Court found his version
unsatisfactory and held that the claim of deliberate non-intimation was
not established.
34. On the alleged incident of 07.04.2017, when the husband and
his parents were allegedly abused outside the house when they went to
see the child, the learned Family Court observed that only the
husband’s father was examined; no other alleged witnesses were
examined; that the incident was not mentioned in the original divorce
petition and surfaced only later in the written statement filed in the
RCR proceedings; and that the husband did not specify the exact
abusive words in cross-examination. The Court concluded that this
incident also was not proved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
35. On the question of the wife’s jewels, the husband produced
Exs.P4 and P5 photographs to show that she wore all her jewels at the
Valaikappu and left for her parents’ house so adorned. The wife, on the
other hand, claimed that she had left all her jewels with the husband’s
parents. The Court held that the husband’s photographs indeed showed
the wife wearing ornaments during the Valaikappu and that there was
no independent evidence to show that she left the jewels with his family.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the wife’s allegation about being
dispossessed of her jewels was not established.
36. On the broader allegation that the wife had raised defamatory
and atrocious allegations against the husband and his family
amounting to mental cruelty, the learned Family Court observed that
the husband too had made several allegations against the wife and her
family and that in such mutual exchanges, it could not be held that
only the husband suffered mental cruelty.
37. The husband relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Malathi Ravi v. B.V. Ravi1 on mental cruelty and
non-invitation to ceremonies. The learned Family Court distinguished
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
the said decision on facts, noting that in the present case, the omission
of the wife’s parents’ names from the Seemantham invitation was at the
instance of the husband’s side; that the husband’s case of repeated
invitations and efforts for reunion was not proved; that it was the
husband who first filed for divorce; and that the wife had consistently
expressed willingness to resume cohabitation.
38. On an overall assessment, the learned Family Court held that
the husband had failed to prove cruelty within the meaning of Section
13(1)(i-a) of the Act. On the other hand, the wife had established her
readiness and willingness to live with the husband. The Court also
noted that the husband had not even issued a lawyer’s notice or filed
any petition for restitution of conjugal rights, but had directly chosen to
file a petition for divorce.
39. Accordingly, Issues (i) and (ii) were answered by rejecting the
husband’s prayer for divorce in H.M.O.P. No.943 of 2018 and allowing
the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P. No.921
of 2018. On Issue (iii), the learned Family Court held that neither party
was entitled to any other relief. Ultimately, H.M.O.P. No.943 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
was dismissed without costs and H.M.O.P. No.921 of 2018 was allowed,
directing the husband to resume cohabitation with the wife within two
months, also without costs.
Grounds of appeal:
40. In C.M.A.(MD) Nos.379 and 380 of 2019, the husband assails
the common judgment of the learned Family Court on various grounds
which, in brief, are as follows:
(a) that the judgment is contrary to law, the weight of evidence
and the probabilities of the case;
(b) that the learned Family Court failed to properly consider the
evidence adduced by the husband and summarily dismissed the divorce
petition;
(c) that the Court failed to appreciate that the wife had no genuine
intention to live with the husband, which, according to the appellant,
stood admitted in her cross-examination, inasmuch as she had
allegedly taken no steps for reunion from 30.08.2016 till the filing of the
divorce petition;
(d) that the Court failed to appreciate the husband’s evidence that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
the wife frequently quarrelled insisting on job / employment and that
this was corroborated by her own admission;
(e) that the Court failed to see that the wife had herself admitted
that for one month after marriage, the husband treated her well and
there was no problem, which, according to the appellant, indicated that
later cruelty developed on her side;
(f) that the Court failed to note that the wife stayed at the
matrimonial home at Karur only for about 20 days (10.08.2016 to
30.08.2016), which is admitted by the wife and her father;
(g) that the Court failed to properly appreciate the alleged incident
of 26.08.2016 when the wife’s father came to Karur and accused the
appellant’s parents of making money by sending his daughter for a job;
(h) that the Court ought to have held, from the wife’s admissions
and conduct, that she wilfully stayed away at her parental home in
Tirunelveli without justifiable cause;
(i) that the Court failed to see that, admittedly, the husband was
not invited for Thalai Deepavali or other customary festivals and that
this conduct caused mental cruelty;
(j) that the wife’s petition in H.M.O.P. No.921 of 2018 for
restitution of conjugal rights was only a counterblast to the husband’s
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
earlier divorce petition and that even she admitted that it was filed after
reading the divorce petition;
(k) that the Court failed to notice that the wife falsely alleged that
her jewels were taken away by the husband’s parents to discharge their
debts, whereas she admitted that such allegations were not pleaded
either in her counter affidavit or in her petition for restitution;
(l) that the wife made several grave and defamatory allegations
against the husband and his family without pleadings or proof, which
itself constituted mental cruelty;
(m) that the Court failed to see that it was the husband’s family
who initiated the Valaikappu arrangements and that the wife, after
adorning all her jewels at the function, straightaway went to her
parents’ house and thereafter ill-treated the appellant’s family;
(n) that the Court failed to recognise that the husband and his
parents were not informed about the birth of the child and were not
invited for the naming ceremony, which was admitted by the wife; and
that their non-invitation coupled with continuous humiliation
amounted to mental cruelty;
(o) that the Court ought to have accepted the corroborated
evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 regarding the husband’s mental
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
suffering; and
(p) that, in any event, the Court ought to have held that there was
no possibility of reunion and granted divorce instead of directing
restitution.
Submissions:
41. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband reiterated the
above grounds and contended that the learned Family Court had
adopted an unduly strict standard of proof unsuited to matrimonial
disputes, thereby resulting in an erroneous rejection of the plea of
cruelty. It was argued that the wife’s conduct in staying for only about
20 days in the matrimonial home, insisting on employment or higher
studies from the inception of marriage, allegedly threatening to
terminate pregnancy, leaving for her parental home and not returning,
not inviting the husband for important ceremonies and festivals and in
allegedly raising reckless allegations against the husband’s family,
cumulatively amounted to mental cruelty.
42. The learned counsel further emphasised that the wife had
admitted in cross-examination that she did not take any steps to rejoin
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
the husband from 30.08.2016 till after the filing of the husband’s
divorce petition, and that her petition for restitution of conjugal rights
was clearly an afterthought motivated by litigation strategy. It was
additionally submitted that the non-invitation of the husband for the
birth, naming ceremony and customary festivals, particularly Thalai
Deepavali, caused him deep mental pain and humiliation, bringing the
case squarely within the ratio of Malathi Ravi v. B.V. Ravi2 , which
had been relied upon before the learned Trial Court and was again
pressed into service in appeal.
43. The learned counsel contended that the learned Family Court
had wrongly disbelieved the incident of 26.08.2016 when the wife’s
father allegedly abused the husband’s parents, though the husband’s
father (P.W.2) had corroborated it and the wife had admitted her father’s
visit to Karur on that day. It was further contended that the learned
Family Court erred in giving undue weight to minor discrepancies and
in rejecting the husband’s evidence for want of corroboration, whereas
matrimonial cruelty is often proved by circumstantial and oral evidence
alone. On the above premises, the learned counsel prayed that the
common judgment of the learned Family Court be set aside, the
husband’s petition for divorce be allowed and the wife’s petition for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
restitution of conjugal rights be dismissed.
44. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife
supported the judgment of the learned Family Court, submitting that it
is a well-reasoned order based on a careful appraisal of evidence and
that no ground has been made out for interference. It was contended
that the wife’s version that she was forced to work despite pregnancy;
that the husband’s family was unhappy with her conception; that they
orchestrated her posting at Karur; that her father’s name was
deliberately omitted from the Valaikappu invitation; and that the
husband never truly attempted to take her back, had been rightly
accepted by the learned Family Court as more probable.
45. The learned counsel for the respondent further stressed that
the husband had not produced any documentary evidence such as call
records, messages or letters to show his alleged efforts at reunion. Nor
had he filed any petition for restitution of conjugal rights or even issued
a notice. Instead, his first recourse to Court was a petition for divorce. It
was further pointed out that the wife has consistently asserted her
willingness to live with the husband, both in her pleadings and in her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
oral evidence, and that the learned Family Court had correctly granted
restitution of conjugal rights considering that the husband had failed to
establish cruelty.
46. The learned counsel submitted that many of the incidents
relied on by the husband, including the alleged abusive incidents and
humiliation on 07.04.2017, were not mentioned in his original divorce
petition and appeared only later in the pleadings in the RCR
proceedings, suggesting afterthought and embellishment. It was next
argued that both sides had traded allegations, and in such a situation,
the husband could not selectively claim that only he suffered mental
cruelty. On the contrary, the wife’s case was that she was wronged but
nevertheless remains ready and willing to resume marital life.
47. With reference to Malathi Ravi v. B.V. Ravi3 , the learned
counsel submitted that the reliance thereon was misplaced, as the
factual matrix in that case was entirely different and, in the present
case, the omission of the wife’s parents’ names from the Seemantham
invitation was itself an act of insensitivity by the husband’s side, which
militated against his plea of unilateral cruelty. The learned counsel,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
therefore, prayed for dismissal of both the appeals.
48. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully
perused the materials available on record.
Points for determination:
49. In the light of the rival contentions and the materials placed
on record, the following points arise for determination in these appeals:
(i) Whether the appellant-husband has established, on a
preponderance of probabilities, that the respondent-wife has treated
him with such mental or other cruelty as would entitle him to a decree
of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
(ii) Whether the decree for restitution of conjugal rights granted in
favour of the respondent-wife in H.M.O.P. No.921 of 2018 calls for
interference by this Court?
Analysis:
50. This Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction over a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
judgment of the learned Family Court, is entitled to re-appreciate the
evidence on record. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the
learned Trial Court had the advantage of observing the demeanor of
witnesses. Unless the findings are shown to be perverse, based on no
evidence, or vitiated by misreading of crucial material, interference is
not warranted.
51. In the present case, the learned Family Court has
meticulously examined each allegation, compared the pleadings with
the depositions and assessed the probabilities arising from the admitted
facts. The burden lies on the appellant to establish that such findings
are unsustainable in law or in fact.
52. The first set of allegations pertains to the wife’s desire to
pursue higher studies or employment from the very date of marriage
and her alleged tendency to pick up quarrels on that issue. Even
assuming, for the sake of argument, that the wife expressed her wish to
study or work, such expression of personal aspiration by a well-
educated woman, within days of marriage, cannot by itself amount to
cruelty. Newly married spouses may naturally discuss their professional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
goals and anxieties. Without more, these discussions cannot be equated
with mental agony or cruelty.
53. Significantly, the husband himself states that he arranged
employment for the wife at Apollo Hospital, Karur, on 12.08.2016,
which indicates that he initially accepted or at least accommodated her
desire to work. This circumstance detracts from the plea that her very
insistence on employment per se constituted cruelty.
54. The husband places considerable reliance on the alleged
incident of 25.08.2016, when the wife’s father is said to have come to
Karur and abused his parents in vulgar terms, accusing them of
making money out of his daughter’s employment. The learned Family
Court has carefully scrutinised the evidence relating to this episode. The
incident, as narrated, is within the personal knowledge of the husband’s
father (P.W.2) and not of the husband himself. The wife’s side has
categorically denied the abusive part of the incident, though the father’s
visit around that time is not in serious dispute.
55. No specific question was put to the wife in cross-examination
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
regarding the precise abusive words attributed to her father. There are
also discrepancies between P.W.1 and P.W.2 as to the exact words
alleged to have been spoken. No independent neighbour or other
witness, though available, was examined. No contemporaneous
complaint was lodged. In such circumstances, this Court sees no
infirmity in the learned Trial Court’s conclusion that the abusive portion
of the incident has not been satisfactorily proved. The mere fact that the
father visited Karur on that date, which he admits, does not by itself
establish the serious imputations of vulgar abuse alleged by the
husband.
56. The allegation that the wife wanted to terminate the
pregnancy for the sake of further studies or employment is undoubtedly
serious and, if true, could have some bearing on the overall assessment
of conduct. However, as rightly noted by the learned Family Court, the
wife carried the pregnancy to full term and gave birth to a female child
on 02.04.2017. If she had decisively resolved to terminate the
pregnancy, she had ample opportunity after returning to her parental
home on 31.08.2016. There is no material to show that she approached
any hospital or took any step in that direction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
57. In this backdrop, this Court concurs with the learned Family
Court that the allegation of a firm insistence on terminating the
pregnancy is not credible. At best, it appears to be an exaggeration or
an ex post facto attribution arising out of differences over her wish to
work or study.
58. It is not in dispute that the wife was left at her parental home
on 31.08.2016. The core question is as to who bears responsibility for
the continuation of separation thereafter. The husband asserts that he
called the wife repeatedly, went in person on several occasions along
with relatives and that she bluntly refused to return. The wife asserts
the exact opposite, namely, that the husband never sincerely tried to
take her back and that she and her father made attempts which were
rebuffed.
59. Crucially, the husband has not produced any call records,
text messages, letters or even a lawyer’s notice to substantiate his
assertion of persistent efforts for reunion. Nor did he file any petition for
restitution of conjugal rights at any stage. His first recourse was a
petition for divorce. The learned Family Court has also noticed that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
several alleged reconciliation visits (for example, on 30.11.2016,
19.12.2016 and 04.01.2017) do not find place in the original divorce
petition and emerge only subsequently in pleadings or in depositions,
and that some alleged accompanying witnesses, such as the
grandfather Ramasamy and cousin Vignesh, were not examined,
whereas P.W.3 Shankar, who claimed to be present, was not even
mentioned in the earlier pleadings.
60. In view of these inconsistencies and the absence of
documentary corroboration from the husband’s side, this Court finds no
perversity in the learned Trial Court’s conclusion that the husband
failed to prove sustained and bona fide attempts at reunion and that his
version of being consistently rebuffed by the wife has not been
established. On the other hand, the wife has, both in her pleadings and
in her oral evidence, expressed her willingness to live with the husband
and has herself approached the Court seeking restitution of conjugal
rights. Such conduct is not consistent with that of a spouse determined
to desert the other.
61. The Valaikappu / Seemantham ceremony held on 11.01.2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
is common ground. Ex.P1, the invitation, shows that the names of the
wife’s parents are conspicuously absent. The husband’s explanation
that the omission was because it was “our family’s special occasion”
was rightly rejected by the learned Family Court. Ordinarily, in such
ceremonies, the wife’s parents’ names would be included. The learned
Family Court found it more probable that the husband’s side insisted
on the omission, as alleged by the wife.
62. Although there is some conflict between P.W.1 and P.W.2
regarding who initiated the Valaikappu arrangements and who went
when to invite the wife, the ultimate fact remains that the function was
held, the wife participated and was thereafter taken back to her
parental home. There is no independent evidence of any misbehaviour
on her part at the function of such magnitude as to amount to cruelty.
If anything, the omission of the wife’s parents’ names from the
invitation, though not in itself decisive, does not support the plea that
the husband’s side were innocent victims of unilateral cruelty in
relation to this episode.
63. The husband strongly relies on the alleged non-intimation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
the child’s birth and non-invitation for the naming ceremony, Thalai
Deepavali and other festivals as acts constituting mental cruelty,
invoking the ratio in Malathi Ravi v. B.V. Ravi4. However, the learned
Family Court, on examining the evidence, has found that the husband’s
own version as to how and when he came to know of the birth is
inconsistent; that he admitted knowing of the delivery through his own
friend, a doctor, and not necessarily belatedly through the wife’s friend;
and that the allegation of hostile reception on 07.04.2017 lacks
contemporaneous pleading and independent corroboration.
64. The claim about non-invitation for Thalai Deepavali and other
festivals was also not specifically pleaded in the original divorce petition
and was projected more fully only later. The wife’s father, on the other
hand, has explained that, in the absence of the husband coming to take
his pregnant wife back to the matrimonial home, the customary concept
of Thalai Deepavali, as understood in their community, did not arise in
the usual manner.
65. In Malathi Ravi v. B.V. Ravi5 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
found a sustained pattern of conduct, fully established on evidence,
including the wife’s unilateral stay away and repeated exclusion of the
husband from important ceremonies. In the present case, the
foundational premise that the husband made earnest and documented
efforts but was rebuffed and sidelined, is itself not proved. The ratio of
Malathi Ravi v. B.V. Ravi6 cannot, therefore, be transplanted
mechanically to a markedly different factual situation.
66. Non-invitation to ceremonies can, in an appropriate case,
amount to mental cruelty. But in the present case, in the light of the
learned Trial Court’s findings that the husband’s own conduct and his
family’s attitude contributed to the separation, this Court is not
persuaded to overturn such conclusions and to treat the non-invitation,
in isolation, as constituting cruelty.
67. The appellant contends that the wife made highly defamatory
allegations that her jewels were taken away to discharge the husband’s
family debts, without adequate pleadings, and that such reckless
allegations amount to mental cruelty. It is indeed settled that
unfounded and scandalous allegations in pleadings can, in appropriate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
circumstances, amount to mental cruelty. However, in the present case,
two aspects warrant mention. First, as the learned Family Court has
noted, the wife’s allegation regarding the jewels has not been proved,
but this allegation arises in the context of mutual exchanges, the
husband having also levelled several allegations against the wife and
her family. Second, the marriage is of very short duration, and the
pleadings have been generated in the heat of litigation following
separation soon after conception. In such a factual milieu, and when
both sides have indulged in aspersions against each other’s families, it
is not possible to selectively characterise only the wife’s statements as
unilateral mental cruelty so as to justify the drastic remedy of
dissolution of marriage.
68. The appellant argues that the wife’s petition in H.M.O.P. No.
921 of 2018 for restitution of conjugal rights is a mere counterblast,
filed only after she read the divorce petition. The mere fact that the
petition for restitution was filed subsequent to the divorce petition, by
itself, does not establish mala fides. It is quite natural that a spouse,
upon being confronted with a petition for divorce, may respond by
seeking restitution of conjugal rights, particularly where she wishes to
preserve the marriage.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
69. The more relevant consideration is whether the wife has
consistently expressed a willingness to reside with the husband and
whether any statutory bar exists to the grant of restitution. In her
pleadings and evidence, she has clearly affirmed her readiness and
willingness to resume cohabitation. The timing of the petition, absent
evidence of sham intention or demonstrable insincerity, does not render
the decree for restitution unsustainable.
70. When the incidents relied upon by the husband, namely, the
wife’s desire to work or study, the brief stay at Karur, the alleged
quarrels, the alleged abusive behaviour of her father, her continued stay
at her parental home from 31.08.2016, the alleged non-intimation or
non-invitation for ceremonies and festivals and the alleged defamatory
statements, are cumulatively viewed, this Court is not persuaded that
the legal threshold of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act has
been crossed.
71. Many of the core allegations have been disbelieved by the
learned Family Court after careful scrutiny of the evidence, and this
Court finds that such findings are supported by reasons and are based
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
on a fair appraisal of the record. No perversity or misreading of material
is demonstrated. On the other hand, the wife has come forward with a
petition for restitution of conjugal rights, has expressed her willingness
to live with the husband and has been raising the minor child with the
legitimate expectation of restoring the marital bond. In this factual
backdrop, it would not be just, nor supported by evidence, to dissolve
the marriage.
72. Consequently, Point No.(i) is answered against the appellant.
He has not established cruelty warranting a decree of divorce.
73. Once it is held that the husband is not entitled to divorce on
the ground of cruelty, the question that remains is whether the decree
for restitution of conjugal rights, granted in favour of the wife, is liable
to be interfered with. The wife has clearly pleaded and deposed that she
is ready and willing to live with the husband. There is no allegation that
she is living in adultery or that any statutory bar exists for the grant of
restitution of conjugal rights.
74. The husband, while professing in oral evidence that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
desired reunion, has not taken any concrete step such as issuing a pre-
litigation notice, filing a petition for restitution or producing
independent evidence of genuine, sustained efforts to bring her back.
His first approach to the Court was to seek divorce. In these
circumstances, the learned Family Court was perfectly justified in
granting restitution of conjugal rights and directing the husband to
resume cohabitation with the wife, rather than severing the marital tie.
75. Point No.(ii) is, therefore, answered in favour of the
respondent-wife. The decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not
warrant interference. For all the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no
merit in either of the appeals.
76. Accordingly, C.M.A.(MD) No.379 of 2019, arising out of the
dismissal of H.M.O.P. No.943 of 2018 (petition for divorce), is dismissed.
77. C.M.A.(MD) No.380 of 2019, arising out of the allowing of
H.M.O.P. No.921 of 2018 (petition for restitution of conjugal rights), is
also dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
78. The common judgment and decree of the learned Family
Court, Madurai, in H.M.O.P. Nos.943 of 2018 and 921 of 2018 are
confirmed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
to costs in these appeals. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petitions stand closed.
Epilogue:
79. Matrimonial litigation often reflects not only the relationship
between husband and wife but also the interplay of attitudes and
expectations among their respective families. A short-lived cohabitation,
early pregnancy, geographical separation on account of employment
and the imprint of parental influence appear to have shaped the present
dispute more than any entrenched incompatibility between the spouses
themselves.
80. The law of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, while
recognising mental cruelty as a ground, demands convincing material
that living together has become harmful or injurious for one spouse.
Mere friction, misunderstandings or isolated incidents in the early
months of marriage, particularly when many of them remain unproved
or are mutually attributable, do not suffice to dissolve the marital bond.
Where, as in the present case, one spouse continues to assert a genuine
willingness to resume marital life and the other fails to establish legal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
grounds for dissolution, the Court is, by statute as well as by principle,
called upon to uphold the sanctity of marriage rather than to endorse
its severance.
81. It is earnestly hoped that, keeping in view the welfare of their
minor child and the spirit underlying the decree for restitution of
conjugal rights, the parties will reflect calmly, set aside their mutual
bitterness and make a sincere endeavour to rebuild their relationship
within the framework of mutual respect and understanding.
82. With the above observations, both the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeals are dismissed in the terms indicated above.
[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,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 & 380 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
AND
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.,
Sml
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.379 and 380 of 2019
09.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
