IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-07-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 12106 OF 2024 Kandeeswaran Poornamathi Appellant(s)

Vs Eswaran Vijayakumar Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Order XLIII Rules 1 and 2 read with 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the Fair and Final order dated 06.08.2018 passed in CMA No.35/2017 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore reversing the order Fair and Final order dated 31.08.2017 passed in H.M.O.P.No.227/2013 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi.

For Appellant(s): Ms.Rohini Ravikumar For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Doraisami, Senior Counsel for Mr.Kandan Duraisamy

JUDGMENT

The present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/wife, Dr. Kandeeswaran Poornamathi, challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in C.M.A. No.35 of 2017 dated 06.08.2018 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, wherein the Appellate Court allowed the husband’s appeal and granted a decree of divorce, setting aside the dismissal of H.M.O.P. No.227 of 2013 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi.

2.The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

The marriage between the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband was solemnized on 11.12.2005 at Sri Appathalswamy Temple, Koorapalayam, Erode, and the same was registered at the Sub Registrar Office, Pollachi. After the marriage, the parties lived together for a short period in India and thereafter went to the United Kingdom, where both were employed as Doctors.

3.The husband filed H.M.O.P. No.227 of 2013 before the Sub Court, Pollachi, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The main allegation was that the wife had caused mental and physical cruelty and, in particular, had poured hot coffee on his face without any provocation during their stay in the U.K., compelling him to leave the matrimonial home. He also alleged that she used abusive language, humiliated him before others, and was non-cooperative in the marital relationship.

4.The wife, in her counter, denied all allegations of cruelty and contended that it was, in fact, the husband and his parents who subjected her to mental and physical harassment demanding dowry. She further pleaded that she had financially supported the husband and his family, transferring large sums of money from her earnings abroad for purchasing property in India. She also raised a preliminary objection that the Pollachi Sub Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as the couple had lived together only in the U.K., and the entire cause of action arose there.

5.The Trial Court, on consideration of pleadings and evidence, found that both the petitioner and the respondent were living abroad and that the Pollachi Sub Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The Trial Court further held that the allegations of cruelty were not proved by acceptable evidence.

Consequently, the petition for divorce was dismissed on 31.08.2017.

6.Aggrieved by the dismissal, the husband preferred C.M.A. No.35 of

2017 before the IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. The Appellate Court, on hearing both sides, perused the entire records and formulated the main point for consideration, “Whether the order of the Subordinate Court dismissing the petition for divorce was sustainable in law?.”

7.The Appellate Court first addressed the issue of territorial jurisdiction.

It observed that although the parties were residing in the United Kingdom, they continued to be Indian citizens (Non-Resident Indians), whose permanent residences were in Erode, India for the husband and Pollachi for the wife. Since the marriage was registered in Pollachi and the wife’s permanent home was situated there, the Appellate Court held that the Pollachi Sub Court possessed valid territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Hindu Marr