IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CMA No. 1900 of 2020 Udayachandran ..Appellant(s)

Vs Devikarani ..Respondent(s)

Appeal against the Judgement and decree passed in FCOP No.125 of

2018, dated 04.08.2020 on the file of Family Court, Namakkal.

For Appellant(s): Mr.V.Selva Perumal For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Viswanathan

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

The petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.125 of 2018 on the file of Family Court at Namakkal, aggrieved by the dismissal of the said petition by judgment dated

04.08.2020, is the appellant herein.

2. The above said petition had been filed seeking divorce of the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent on 02.09.2011.

Dissolution was sought under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955, on the ground of cruelty.

3. In the petition filed, the appellant had stated that the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnised on 02.09.2011 and, during the marriage, there was the usual exchange of jewellery and other items. It had been further stated that when the Valaikapu festival for the respondent had been done, she went to her mother’s house and, at that time, the appellant had gone at irregular intervals to reside in the mother-in-law’s house. It was contended that the respondent had however acted disparagingly against the appellant.

4. A male child was born on 22.05.2014. When the appellant went over to his mother-in-law’s house to see the child, it was contended that they spoke ill of him and abused him. It was stated that there were many attempts for settlement by calling upon the respondent to come back to the marital house and live with the appellant, but, she refused to do so. It was contended that the respondent had left the marital house and had not returned back, which was an act of desertion and that desertion amounted to cruelty. On those grounds, the appellant had filed the petition, seeking divorce.

5. In the counter, the allegations had been denied. It was stated that the respondent was always ready to live with the appellant. It had also been stated that the appellant was living a way-ward life by spending money and he was also spending money on alcohol and on playing cards. It was also stated that she wanted to preserve the marital relationship in her interest and particularly in the interest of her son.

6. An additional counter affidavit had also been filed by the respondent, stating that the allegation of the appellant that she was seeking a share in the property was not correct. She reiterated that she was ready and willing to continue the marital life with the appellant.

7. On the basis of the said pleadings, the parties went to trial. During trial, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined his maternal uncle as P.W.2. He marked four documents as Exs.P-1 to P-4 on his side. Ex.P-2 was the information received under the Right To Information Act about the complaint given by the respondent and the enquiry conduced under it. The respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and marked one document as Ex.R-1 on her side.

8. The learned trial Judge, on the basis of the evidence, held that the allegation primarily was that the respondent had demanded a share in the land. It was also found with respect to allegations of cruelty that no substantial evidence had been adduced and that the primary grievance was that the respondent had left the marital house at the time of Valaikapu festival and did not come back.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that this amounted to cruelty.

This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that this act amounted to cruelty had also been raised during trial and rejected by the trial Court and the petition had been dismissed. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the present appeal has been filed.

10. Heard the learned counsels for the appellant and the respondent.

1