IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

Thursday, the Eighth day of October Two Thousand Twenty

PRESENT

THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

AND

THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

CMA NO.878 & 879 OF 2017

KARTHIKEYAN KUMAR

[ APPELLANT IN BOTH PETITIONS ]

Vs

U.SUBASHINI

[ RESPONDENT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS ]

(i) Appeal against the the Fair and decreetal ordr of the II

Additional Family Court at Chennai, dated 05.01.2017 passed in

O.P.No.243 of 2015 (in CMA.879/17) and;

(ii) Appeal against the the Fair and decreetal ordr of the II

Additional Family Court at Chennai, dated 05.01.2017 passed in

O.P.No.2687 of 2016 (in CMA.879/17) and;

Order : This appeal and petition coming on for hearing on

today upon persuing the petition of appeal, the order of the lower

court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the

arguments of MR.S.N.PARTHASARATHY, FOR M/S.D.SARAVANA KUMAR,

Advocate for the appellant in both the petitions and of

MR.K.S.JEYAGANESHAN, Advocate on behalf of the respondent in both

the petitions the court made the following order:-

(The order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J)

The husband has filed O.P.No.243 of 2015 on the file of

learned II Additional Family Court, Chennai, seeking divorce. Wife

has filed O.P.No.2687 of 2016 seeking restitution of conjugal

rights to direct the husband to join with her. The Court below,

under order dated 05.01.2017, allowed the petition filed by the

wife and dismissed the petition filed by the husband by observing

that no grounds have been made to prove cruelty, so as to enable

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

the husband to get a decree of divorce. Challenging the said order,

the present appeals have been filed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent / wife

submitted that the wife wanted to live with the appellant /

husband, though very many allegations were made against her.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

appellant / husband submitted that the wife is suffering from

mental disorder and hence, it is not possible for him to live with

her.

4.

In the aforestated circumstances, this Court considers it

appropriate to direct the appellant as well as the respondent to

appear before a Psychologist to explore the possibility of an

amicable settlement of the matrimonial dispute between them.

Accordingly, this Court directs as follows:

(i)The Dean, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai

Central, Chennai, is directed to depute a competent Psychologist

who shall mediate and conciliate between the appellant and the

respondent for amicable settlement of their matrimonial dispute.

(ii)The Psychologist so deputed by the Dean, Rajiv Gandhi

Government General Hospital, Chennai shall cause notice to the

appellant and the respondent for their appearance on a particular

date and time.

(iii) On receipt of such notice, the appellant and the respondent

shall appear before the Psychologist for a mediation and

conciliation for amicable resolution of their matrimonial disputes.

After conducting such conciliation or mediation, the Psychologist

shall submit a report as to the outcome of the same to the Dean,

Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai Central, Chennai,

who, in turn, shall forward the same to this Court in a sealed

cover on or before 02.11.2020. Post on 02.11.2020.

-sd/-

08/10/2020

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar ( Statistics / C.S. )

High Court, Madras - 600 104.

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

TO

1

THE II ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT,

CHENNAI.

2

THE DEAN,

RAJIV GANDHI GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL,

CHENNAI CENTRAL, CHENNAI,

C.C. to M/S