IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-08-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI K.Krithika D/o.M.Karthikeyan Appellant(s)

Vs S.Madhavan S/o.Sathiyamoorthy Respondent(s)

PRAYER Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, prays to set aside the Order and Decretal order dated 08.11.2021, passed in CMA No.20 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur, reversing the order and decretal order dated 26.04.2018, passed in HMOP.No.429 of 2013, on the file of Sub-Judge, Poonamallee.

For Appellant(s): Mr.P.B.Ramanujam For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Murugan

JUDGEMENT

The appellant has filed this appeal to set aside the Order and Decretal order dated 08.11.2021, passed in CMA No.20 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur, reversing the order and decretal order dated 26.04.2018, passed in HMOP.No.429 of 2013, on the file of the Sub-Judge, Poonamallee.

2. Challenging the reversal findings of the First Appellate Court, the wife has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal. Before the Trial Court, the appellant/wife filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnized between herself and the respondent on 01.07.2009. Along with the petition, she also filed I.A.No.46 of 2015 under Section 27 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking return of the articles listed in the petition.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as husband and wife.

4. Before the Trial Court, both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. On considering the materials on record, the learned Trial Judge held that the conduct of the respondent established that he had caused cruelty to the appellant/wife, and accordingly granted a decree of divorce. Except for a few items, the gold and silver articles were directed to be returned by allowing I.A.No.46 of 2015. Aggrieved by the said findings, the husband preferred CMA No.20 of 2018 before the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur. The First Appellate Court analysed the entire facts and evidence and ultimately concluded that the husband had always intended to continue the matrimonial life, whereas the allegations of cruelty levelled by the wife had not been proved. Accordingly, the CMA was allowed. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the First Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and did not adopt the correct judicial approach while deciding the points for consideration. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court failed to note that the respondent/husband, even prior to the filing of the divorce petition, had expressed his intention to dissolve the marriage as early as 2012, which itself indicates that he was never inclined to continue the marital relationship. He further contended that the learned Appellate Judge failed to take cognizance of the omissions and commissions on the part of the respondent, which clearly show that he never intended re-union, and that his communication with the appellant was only to fill up the lacunae and create an impression as if he intended to live with her. Even during the pendency of the case for five years, the respondent had not taken any steps for re-union by filing appropriate applications. Without considering these aspects, the learned First Appellate Judge erroneously accepted the respondent’s evidence and allowed the appeal, which is illegal and liable to be set aside.

6. This Court admits this Civil Miscellaneous Second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

“(A) Whether or not the respondent leaving the appellant wife alone at the matrimonial home for days together without informing her about his whereabouts or the period of his travel, the purpose of his travel amounts to me