IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.03.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2022

Thiru. P.Duraisamy ... Appellant/Appellant/Petitioner

Vs

Tmt.S.Kalaivani

... Respondent/Respondent/Respondent

PRAYER : This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under

Section 28(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, R/w. Section 100 of Civil

Procedure Code, against the fair and decretal order dated

14.09.2021 made in C.M.A.No.08 of 2020 on the file of the

learned Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode at

Gobichettipalayam confirming the fair and decretal order dated

07.10.2020 made in H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2017 on the file of the

learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam.

For Appellant : Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy

O R D E R

The unsuccessful husband before both the Courts below is the

appellant before this Court.

2. The brief facts are as follows:

The appellant and the respondent were married on 26.08.2015

at Perunthurai. The parties, after marriage had settled at the

matrimonial home along with the appellant's parents. The

respondent stayed for 16 days in her matrimonial home and after

that for 13 days she was at her parents house. Thereafter, the

respondent had adopted a routine of suddenly leaving the house

and going to her parents house without informing the appellant

and returning to the matrimonial home at her will. For three

months, this practice is continued. However, on 02.11.2015, she

had left for her parental home after which she had not returned

to her matrimonial home.

3. The appellant would submit that the respondent while she

was at her matrimonial home would repeatedly say that she has

been forced to live in a village though she was brought up in a

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

City. Therefore, she preferred her parental home. She would also

slight the appellant/petitioner. All of which, had caused a

great hardship and mental agony to the appellant. The respondent

did not mingle freely with her in-laws. He would also state

that the respondent had in one of her conversation told the

appellant that if she had lived with some other person, she will

be leading a happy life. She also lamented that the appellant

was brought up by his mother to be a nice boy. He would further

state that when she had conceived, she has asked the appellant

to get her some medicines to abort the baby. She had in fact

stated that abortion is very common now in the I.T. Industry.

Every time, the respondent had gone to her parents house, it was

the appellant who used to bring her back. On 02.11.2015, when

she had left the matrimonial home, the appellant did not attempt

to bring her back because he feared that if she was brought back

she may attempt some drastic action. These acts of the

respondent had caused hardship to the appellant. Therefore, he

had filed the H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2017 on the file of the Sub-

Court, Gobichettipalayam for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

4. The respondent had filed a counter denying all the

allegations contained in the petition. In her counter, the

respondent had stated that the petition for divorce had been

filed on account of the fact that the respondent had delivered a

girl child. The respondent had categorically stated that she did

not hate the appellant/petitioner as contended in the petition.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the

petition is totally bereft of any details regarding the dates

and in whose presence the respondent had treated the appellant

with cruelty. In fact, the appellant/petitioner is silent about

whether the cruelty is physical or mental which itself would

clearly show that the reasons stated in the petition is a

concocted one and made with a false intent. She therefore sought

for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that no cause of

action had been made out by the ap