[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Raja vs Parvathi on 12 March, 2026
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
CMA(MD)No.899 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.03.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
CMA.(MD)No.899 of 2023
Raja ... Appellant
Vs
Parvathi ... Respondent
PRAYER :-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 19 of the Family
Courts Act against the decree and judgment dated 24.05.2023 in HMOP
No.192 of 2021 and counter claim in HMOP No.192/2021 on the file of the
Family Court, Pudukottai.
For Appellant : M/s.A.Mohan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Premkumar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.)
The husband has assailed the order passed by the family Court,
Pudukottai in HMOP No.192/2021 dated 24.05.2023, wherein, the petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
filed by the husband seeking for the dissolution of the marriage was rejected
and the counter claim filed by the wife seeking for restitution of conjugal
rights was ordered.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the respondent.
3. The appellant was married to the respondent on 08.07.2019 as per
Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage, they resided in the
matrimonial home for hardly few months. According to the appellant, even
during the short period, the respondent was talking ill of the appellant and
disrespected his parents and she went to her parents house and never
returned back to the matrimonial home. The respondent gave birth to a
child and the appellant was not even invited to the parents house to see the
child.
4. It is under these circumstances, divorce petition came to be filed by
the appellant on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act for dissolving the marriage.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
5. The respondent filed counter and also made a counter claim for
restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent made several allegations
against the appellant to the effect that she was treated with cruelty and the
appellant used to move closely with his brother's wife and the appellant did
not even care to visit the hospital or the house of the parents of the
respondent, after the child was born. Even when the respondent's parents
took the child to the appellant's house, neither the appellant nor his parents
spoke anything. Thus, the respondent took a stand that she was forced to
move out of the matrimonial home and that in spite of the deficiencies on
the part of the appellant, she wanted to live with the appellant considering
the future of the child. Hence, the respondent sought for the relief of
restitution of conjugal rights.
6. PW1 and PW2 were examined on the side of the appellant and
Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were marked. RW1 to RW4 were examined on the side of
the respondent and Ex.R1 was marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
7. The family Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and on appreciation of evidence, proceeded to dismiss the divorce
petition filed by the appellant and allow the counter claim filed by the
respondent seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. Aggrieved by the
same, the present appeal has been filed before this court.
8. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either
side and the materials available on record.
9. Even at the outset, we enquired the learned counsel for the
appellant as to how a single appeal is maintainable as against two distinct
reliefs that were granted by the family Court – one by rejecting the divorce
petition and the other allowing the counter claim and granting the relief of
restitution of conjugal rights. We put this question on the ground that
counter claim has to be considered as an independent suit/petition filed by
the respondent and the relief granted in the counter claim must be
considered as an independent relief, which must also be put to challenge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the family
Court passed a common judgment and common decree and therefore, single
appeal is maintainable.
11. We have our own reservations on the above stand taken by the
learned counsel for the appellant. In our considered view, counter claim
made by the respondent has to be considered as an independent petition
since an independent and distinct relief is sought for by the respondent by
filing a counter claim. Therefore, even though a common judgment has
been passed by the family Court, considering the fact that the issues
involved were common and it was between the same parties, appeal must be
filed independently as against the dismissal of the divorce petition and
allowing counter claim by rejecting the relief of restitution of conjugal
rights. To render such a finding, we are relying upon the ratio in the
judgment in Rajeswari v. Perumal and another reported in 2018 (4) LW
536. We are also placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple and another Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and
others reported in 2015(3) SCC 624.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
12. In the light of the above discussion, the single appeal filed by the
appellant against two distinct reliefs granted by the family Court – one
dismissing the divorce petition and the other granting the relief of restitution
of conjugal rights, may not be maintainable.
13. In view of the above, we will confine this appeal only with
respect to the dismissal of the divorce petition filed by the appellant and see
if the order requires the interference of this Court.
14. On a careful reading of the divorce petition filed by the appellant,
it is seen that the appellant and the respondent were not able to come to
terms and adjust themselves to lead a happy married life. The only
redeeming factor in this marriage was the child that was born to the
respondent. Even this child was not able to create a common ground to
enable the appellant and the respondent to live together. The only allegation
regarding cruelty is that the respondent continued to live with her parents
and in spite of the best efforts, she did not join with the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
15. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the nature of
allegations that have been made by the respondent in the counter by
questioning the character of the appellant clearly constitutes cruelty.
16. In the considered view of this Court, the cause of action for filing
the divorce petition alone can be taken into consideration and what stand
was taken in the counter will not create a new cause of action for the
appellant to take advantage of the same and make an attempt to establish the
gound of cruelty.
17. The family Court has carefully considered the evidence adduced
by both sides and has rendered a finding that the respondent had stayed with
the appellant only for a very short time in the matrimonial home and that the
appellant has not made out a case for cruelty. This finding rendered by the
family Court is perfectly in order. The bickering that takes place between a
husband and wife and more particularly during the initial stage of marriage
is a common phenomenon that invariably takes place in every marriage
relationship. If the same is attempted to be projected as cruelty, most of the
marriages will have to be dissolved. A stable relationship of a husband and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
wife is a long drawn process that requires patience and lot of adjustment.
18. In the case in hand, the appellant and the respondent hardly lived
together for a couple of months and the initial bickerings were not properly
sorted out and both of them are living separately. Unfortunately, the child
has been caught in the crossfire. As rightly held by the family Court, the
appellant certainly has not made out a case for cruelty either physical or
mental and therefore, the dismissal of the divorce petition by the family
Court does not warrant interference of this Court.
19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
(N.A.V.,J.) (P.D.B.,J.)
12.03.2026
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
RR
To
1.The Family Court, Pudukottai.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
AND
P.DHANABAL, J.
RR
12.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
