Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78733
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
S.T.Masilamani – Appellant
Versus
Vijayakumari – Respondent
CMSA No. 18 of 2023 | CMP NO. 617 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.R.Suresh
For the Respondents: Mr.G.Jeremiah
Settlement of maintenance and divorce granted due to irretrievable breakdown after prolonged separation, following agreed terms.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, Sec. 100 - Hindu Marriage Act, Sec. 28 - Settlement of maintenance and claims in divorce proceedings - Appellant and respondent submitted terms of settlement, including demand drafts for permanent maintenance totaling Rs.35,00,000/- as both parties lacked prospects for re-union after prolonged separation - The court approved the settlement and allowed the appeal, recording the breakdown of marriage. (Paras 2-4)
(B) Divorce - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - The court emphasized the long separation of over 27 years and the lack of any possibility for reconciliation - The settlement reached was deemed appropriate, and the court granted the divorce. (Paras 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
The appellant and respondent had been separated for over 27 years, with their daughter living with the respondent, and disputes regarding maintenance led to this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court noted the amicable settlement of Rs.35,00,000/- for permanent alimony and granted a divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
Issues: The central issues were whether the appellant's long separation from the respondent justified the divorce and the necessity of the agreed settlement amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prolonged separation and mutual agreement on terms of settlement satisfied the legal grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, reinforcing the principle that settlements in family law disputes are vital.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing of the settlement case. (Para 1) |
| 2. settlement amount agreed upon for maintenance. (Para 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT
Today, when the matter taken up for hearing under the caption “For Reporting compliance”, both parties appeared in person along with their counsels.
2. As per the settlement terms, today, the appellant submitted a demand draft dated 13.08.2025 bearing No. 498986 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- drawn in favour of daughter Sangeetha M. and another demand draft dated 20.08.2025 bearing No.498997 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- drawn in favour of respondent Vijayakumari N. as full and final settlement for maintenance and all other claims between petitioner and respondent. Since daughter Sangeetha was not able to come, she appeared through video conference. However, daughter Sangeetha has given undertaking affidavit that she would not make any further claim in respect of maintenance or in respect of property and she has given a power to her mother to receive the demand draft for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and the same was confirmed by this court through video conference as she had appeared today. Indeed both respondent and her daughter are represented through counsel. Therefore, there is no further claim between the parties in future and the demand drafts are handed over to the respondent. The order passed by this Court on 09.07.2025 is duly complied with. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is allowed. The undertaking affidavit filed by daughter Sangeetha is recorded and the same shall be forming part and parcel of this judgment. No further orders.
28-08-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No rpp To
1.Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur.
2. Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
rpp AND CMP NO. 617 OF
2023
28-08-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-07-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CMSA No. 18 of 2023 S.T.Masilamani Appellant Vs Vijayakumari Respondent PRAYER :- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Sec.100 of C.P.C. r/w Sec.28 of Hindu Marriage Act , praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dt.30.06.2020 made in CMA No. 2 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur confirming the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 21.10.2011 made in H.M.O.P.No. 45 of 2011 on the file of Subordinate Judges Court, Tiruttani.
For Appellant: Mr. A.R.Suresh For Respondent: Mr.G.Jeremiah
JUDGEMENT
Today, when the matter taken up for hearing, both the appellant and respondent appeared before this Court along with their counsels. On hearing both sides, the fact reveals that there is no possibility of re-union, since both were separated for more than 27 years, however, a daughter born to them was living with the respondent/wife of appellant. As on date, the appellant as well as respondent are employed, but the daughter was not given proper maintenance till her marriage as per the order of this Court by the appellant.
2. Under such circumstances, at the fag end of this cases, the appellant wanted to settle the issue amicably, though he is not inclined for re-union due to long separation. So, the relationship between the appellant and respondent is irretrievably broke down. Hence, there is no possibility for reunion. Both parties have arrived settlement. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.34,00,000/- was arrived as permanent alimony for both the respondent wife as well as his married daughter. At the time of argument, she would submit that her daughter also had some family problem and residing with her and she is under the custody of respondent.
3. Considering the fact that a final settlement was arrived for a sum of Rs.35 lakhs as permanent alimony to the respondent wife as well as Sangeetha, daughter of appellant. He has agreed to settle the amount, but he needs some more time and to that effect, he filed an undertaking affidavit. The affidavit filed by the appellant is recorded. Since the
