IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.04.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE C.M.A.Nos.1422 & 1433 of 2021 and C.M.P.Nos.7425, 7426 & 7461 of 2021 U.Sridhar ... Appellant in both the appeals Vs.

S.Yamini ...Respondent in both the appeals PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act read with Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.02.2021 made in H.M.O.P.Nos.1228 of 2014 &

423 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore.

For Appellant : Mr. K.S. Karthik Raja in both cases.

For Respondent : Mr. T.K.S. Gandhi in both cases.

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Delivered by Dr. A.D. Maria Clete, J)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the husband who is petitioner in divorce petition challenging the common order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Additional Family Court, Coimbatore in H.M.O.P. No. 423 of 2013 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, and H.M.O.P. No. 1228 of 2014 filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court negatived the prayers made in both petitions and instead granted a decree for judicial separation by invoking section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

2. The Case in brief: The marriage between the appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) was solemnized on 06.06.2011. It was the second marriage for both parties. The appellant/husband filed H.M.O.P. No. 423 of 2013 seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty, detailing various instances of mental and physical cruelty, including false accusations, constant quarrels, humiliation in the presence of others, and unfounded allegations that affected his dignity and peace of mind. The respondent/wife, on the other hand, filed H.M.O.P. No. 1228 of 2014 seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.

3. Upon full-fledged trial, the Family Court held that the allegations of cruelty and desertion were not proved to the required standard, nor was the wife entitled to restitution. However, on the premise that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated, the Family Court, invoking its discretionary power, granted a decree of judicial separation in both matters by invoking Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

4. While the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the Court to grant a decree of judicial separation in a petition filed for divorce, no such power is contemplated in a petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights. In the present case, when the Family Court rejected the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P. No.1224 of 2024, it ought to have dismissed the petition as such, rather than granting judicial separation under that petition. The Family Court, however, proceeded to grant judicial separation in both the petitions, including one where the statutory framework does not permit such relief. It is also relevant to note that although the Family Court declined to grant restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent-wife has not filed any appeal challenging that finding.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Family Court committed a legal error in granting a relief that was not sought by either party, namely, judicial separation, instead of adjudicating upon the specific reliefs prayed for — dissolution of marriage by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty, and restitution of conjugal rights by the wife under Section 9 of the Act. In examining the prayer for divorce, the Family Court noted that the appellant-husband had alleged that the respondent-wife frequently quarrelled with him without any provocation, used abusive language, and once inflicted physical cruelty by scratching his face with her fingernails. He also alleged that the respondent assaulted his aged parents, causing them physical injury, and