IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-08-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 3390 OF 2024 FEMILA ...Appellant(s)

Vs J.Antony Prakash ...Respondent(s)

PRAYER:Appeal filed under Section 55 of the Divorce Act, 18959 to set aside impugned order and Decretal order passed in IDOP.No.12 of 2020 dated

16.08.2023 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem.

For Appellant(s): Mr.K.R.Gunashekar For Respondent(s): Mr.A.E.Ravichandran

ORDER

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/wife challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, in I.D.O.P. No. 12 of 2020, whereby the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved on the ground of cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.

2.The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 19.01.2018 according to Christian rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, a male child, namely, Eben Christo, was born on 25.12.2018. According to the respondent/husband, the appellant’s conduct after the marriage was indifferent and hostile. She allegedly picked up quarrels on trivial matters, humiliated him before his family members, refused to perform marital obligations, and often left the matrimonial home without justification. The respondent further alleged that she attempted to commit suicide on more than one occasion and created an atmosphere of mental stress, thereby rendering it impossible for him to continue marital life.

3.On the other hand, the appellant/wife contended that she had always been willing to live with her husband and that it was the respondent who, due to his arrogance and unreasonable attitude, deserted her and the child. She alleged that the respondent failed to maintain the family, refused to take her back to the matrimonial home, and neglected the child’s welfare.

4.After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/husband. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment of the Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence. It was submitted that: The Trial Court failed to note that the respondent did not establish any specific act of cruelty attracting Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act. The alleged quarrels and misunderstandings are mere normal wear and tear of married life and cannot amount to mental cruelty. The respondent himself, through Ex.P2 dated 11.11.2019 issued a Legal Notice seeking restitution of conjugal life, and by Ex.P3 dated 28.11.2019, the appellant responded accepting the offer and expressing willingness to resume cohabitation. The same, according to counsel, amounted to condonation of any prior misconduct, which legally bars the grant of divorce. Furthe, the Trial Court ignored the fact that the appellant, being a young mother, was taking care of the child alone without support, and that the respondent never visited or supported the child since separation. Such behaviour, according to counsel, constitutes cruelty by the husband, not by the wife. Finally, learned counsel emphasized that the marriage has not irretrievably broken down and that the appellant still desires to resume marital life for the sake of the minor child. On these grounds, the counsel urged that the impugned Judgment be set aside and the marriage be preserved.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the Trial Court. He submitted that the appellant’s conduct was consistently hostile and humiliating, making cohabitation unbearable for the respondent. The evidence of P.W.1 was corroborated by the testimony of P.W.2 and documentary evidence, including medical and communication records, clearly establishing repeated acts of mental cruelty. The appellant’s repeated suicide threats, removal of thali, and public humiliati