Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5275

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.POORNIMA, J.
T. Lavanya – Appellant
Versus
Srinivasa R. Reddy – Respondent
C.M.S.A. (MD) Nos. 3, 7 of 2021
Decided On : 12-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : M. Killivalavan
For the Respondent: D. Nallathambi

The appeal court affirmed that substantial evidence of cruelty and adultery justified the husband's divorce petition, while mere allegations against him lacked sufficient proof.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9, 13(1)(i), and 13(1)(i-a) - Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal - Dismissal of husband's petition for divorce premised on cruelty and desertion, reversed by the appellate court, which found evidence of wife's adultery and living apart from the husband. The trial court had earlier allowed the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. (Paras 5-7, 19-21)

(B) Adultery - Definition and evidence - Allegations necessary for establishing grounds for divorce under the Act. Mere allegations without substantial proof do not constitute grounds for divorce. The court noted that the husband failed to prove the first wife’s alleged immoral conduct despite accusations, while he is documented as the biological father of the couple's child. (Paras 8, 22)

(C) Consent Divorce Deed - The validity of a consent divorce deed and its implications on the earlier married life of the parties, with the noted conclusion that condonation of previous misconduct can negate claims made thereafter. (Paras 10-12)

(D) Role of Evidence - The importance of credible witnesses and documents in determining marital disputes, emphasizing the need for corroboration in claims of infidelity and mental cruelty. (Paras 21-24)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from divorce petitions initiated by the husband citing adultery and cruelty, and included a history of the couple's troubled marriage since their 1996 marriage, issues regarding their children, and mutual allegations of infidelity and behavior that amounted to cruelty.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court upheld the findings of the trial court that the wife engaged in adulterous relationships, warranting dissolution of the marriage.

Issues: The primary legal questions included whether the appellate court rightly reversed the findings of the trial court regarding cruelty and if the allegations made in the criminal proceedings had any substantive basis.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the husband established sufficient grounds of cruelty and that the unsubstantiated character allegations made by the wife were inadequate for a defense against the divorce claim.

Result: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals dismissed, affirming the lower court's ruling.

Table of Content
1. marriage and background of parties (Para 2)
2. respondent's dispute and counterarguments (Para 3)
3. trial court's proceedings and decisions (Para 4 , 5)
4. substantial legal questions considered (Para 6 , 7)
5. arguments regarding evidence and credibility (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
6. contentions of both parties (Para 13 , 14)
7. observation on unsubstantiated claims (Para 15)
8. evidence review and its implications (Para 16 , 19)
9. findings on marital discord and implications of complaints (Para 20 , 21)
10. final observation and court's rationale (Para 22 , 23)
11. final judgment and decree confirmation (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

R. POORNIMA, J.

1. The Appellant/wife has filed these Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals against the judgment dated 17.09.2020 passed in HMCMA.Nos.35 & 34 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Theni reversing the Order and decretal order dated 19.09.2019 made in HMOP.Nos.77 of 2010 and 91 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni.

2. The case of the petitioner / husband in both petition in brief:

(a) The marriage of the Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnized on 08.02.1996 at Thirumala, Andhra Pradesh as per the Hindu rites and customs. The Petitioner is working as a District Forest Officer in Theni District. The Respondent is a house wife. Out of lawful wedlock on 05.08.1997 a male child by name Mathav Reddy was born to the Respondent/Wife.

(b) During the year 1999, the Respondent/Wife developed illicit intimacy with one Babu of Kodaikanal and the Respondent. A female child was born as a result of her illegal intimacy with the said Babu. On coming to know of these facts, both the Petitioner & the Respondent mutually agreed to separate . Then they have executed a unregistered Consent Divorce Deed on 24.01.2002.

(c) The Respondent beseeched Petitioner that she would mend her behaviour in future. Believing her assurance ,the petitioner permitted the first respondent to reside with him from then onwards . Subsequently, the first respondent wife developed an intimate relationship with one Sahul Hameed, 2nd Respondent and they have been continued their affair for the past 1 ½ years without the knowledge of the Petitioner. Earlier,the 2nd Respondent was employed as a driver under the Petitioner. The Petitioner had gone to C hennai on official duty on 24.04.2010 and returned on 26.04.2010. On his return he found that the the 1st Respondent and the house hold articles were missing from the matrimonial home. On making discreet inquiries he came to know that 1st and 2nd Respondent were residing together at Allinagaram, Theni District. Thereafter, the Petitioner lodged a police complaint on 01.06.2010. The 1st Respondent is now openly living with 2nd Respondent leading a life of adultery. The conduct of the Respondent has caused mental agony to the Petitioner and such acts amount to cruelty and adultery. Hence, this petition .

3. The case of the respondent/wife in both the petitions in brief:

(i) The respondent/wife disputed the allegation contained in the petition submits t. She contended that the Petitioner is a Homosexual. The Petitioner's activities are well known to second respondent as well as one Babu who were working under him as drivers. The 2nd Respondent in fact advised him to undergo psychological treatment . It is the Petitioner taken a house at Allinagaram for lease and asked the Respondent to live in that house. The Respondent was sent to the above said house with house hold items by the Petitioner on 23.04.2010 . The Petitioner under the instigation of his mother subjected the respondent to harassment and demanded lakhs of money as dowry. The Respondent's father was a multimillionaire at Rajamundry. After the demise of the father-in-law of the respondent/Wife, it is alleged that the petitioner fabricated a story connecting her with 2nd Respondent with a driver who was worked in the petitioner's office and spread defamatory statements against her. The petitioner d