CMSA. No.5 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.01.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

CMSA.No.5 of 2025

and

CMP.No.4928 of 2025

S.Shanmugam

S/o.K.Sundaram ... Appellant

Vs

A.Nathiya

W/o.S.Shanmugam ... Respondent

PRAYER:Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and decree dated

22.11.2024 passed in CMA.No.1 of 2023, on the file of the II Additional

District Judge, Tiruchengode, confirming the decree and the judgement

dated 26.10.2022 rendered in HMOP.No.151 of 2014, on the file of the

Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, by allowing this Civil Miscellaneous

Second Appeal.

For Appellant : M/s.G.Sumitra

For Respondent : Mr.Palanisamy

1\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

JUDGEMENT

The appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment

and decree dated 22.11.2024 passed in CMA.No.1 of 2023, on the file of the

II Additional District Judge, Tiruchengode, confirming the decree and the

judgement dated 26.10.2022 rendered in HMOP.No.151 of 2014, on the file

of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as ‘husband’

and ‘wife’.

3. Challenging the findings of the Courts below, the

appellant/husband has preferred the present appeal. Before the trial Court,

the appellant/husband filed H.M.O.P. No.151 of 2014 seeking a decree of

divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act against the respondent/wife. The said petition was contested

by the respondent/wife by filing a counter statement, and both parties

adduced oral and documentary evidence before the trial Court. Upon

2\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

consideration of the evidence and documents, the learned trial Judge held

that the petitioner/husband had failed to prove the allegation of cruelty on

the part of the respondent/wife and accordingly dismissed the petition.

4. Challenging the said findings, the appellant/husband preferred

C.M.A. No.1 of 2023 before the II Additional District Judge, Tiruchencode.

The First Appellate Court, after analysing the evidence on record, concluded

that the reasons assigned by the petitioner were not sufficient to hold that

the conduct of the respondent caused mental suffering to the petitioner

beyond bearable limits. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming

the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the

Courts below, the appellant/husband has preferred the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Courts below

failed to consider the fact that psychotherapy counselling suggested by the

employer of the appellant could not be continued solely due to the adamant

attitude and refusal on the part of the respondent. This clearly demonstrates

that the respondent was not willing to mend her ways or adjust to the

realities of life with the appellant, which resulted in irreconcilable

3\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

differences between the spouses. When the cause of action for filing the

petition was based on cruelty arising out of a false complaint lodged before

the All Women Police Station, the failure of the Courts below to even

consider the same as an instance of cruelty is perverse. He further submits

that the Courts below failed to properly appreciate the fact of unnecessary

and persistent quarrels initiated by the respondent on all occasions. The

same is evident from Exhibit P5, the Counsellor’s report. However, the

Courts below, on misplaced sympathies, concluded that quarreling by the

wife cannot be a ground for granting divorce, completely overlooking the

mental cruelty suffered by the appellant due to such continuous quarrels.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would also point out that the

Courts below failed to consider the attitude and conduct of the respondent,

who constantly threatened the appellant that she would commit suicide by

jumping into a well or by exploding herself using an LPG cylinder. She also

inflicted injuries upon herself using sharp objects and knives. This

behaviour indicates a serious psychological issue, and the efforts taken by

the appellant to address and cure the same were abruptly terminated due to

the non-cooperation of the respondent, as evidenced by Exhibit P5.

4\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

Continuation of such conduct by the respondent clearly amounts to mental

agony and harassment caused to the appellant. Further, it is submitted that

the Courts below failed to consider that the dispute between the appellant

and the respondent is purely personal in nature, hinging upon private issues

between the spouses. Expecting third-party evidence in such matrimonial

disputes is highly impractical, and therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 ought not to have been brushed aside lightly.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the

Courts below, by relying upon Exhibit B5, erroneously concluded that there

was no proof of the respondent having psychological issues. In fact, the

respondent refused to cooperate during cross-examination, which itself

demonstrates her unwillingness to maintain compatibility and lead a happy

marital life with the appellant. Despite these aspects, the decree of divorce

was not granted to the petitioner, which is illegal and the findings are liable

to be set aside. He also submits that the lower appellate Court failed to

consider the fact that the appellant had lodged a complaint on 31.07.2014

due to unbearable harassment caused by the respondent. The same was

ignored, and the Courts below erroneously held that there was no

5\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

convincing evidence on the side of the appellant to prove mental cruelty.

Such findings are perverse and liable to be set aside.

8. The learned trial Judge observed that the dates and events were not

specifically pleaded. However, in a domestic matter, it is impossible to

remember and narrate every minute detail. Even otherwise, the refusal to

grant a decree of divorce is totally unwarranted and illegal, especially when

the respondent had gone to the extent of filing a false case against the

appellant. In such circumstances, it would not be conducive for the

appellant to live with the respondent, and this crucial aspect has been

completely overlooked by the Courts below. He further pointed out that the

respondent/wife had not taken any steps towards reunion. Though she

expressed before this Court that she was willing for reunion, the same

clearly lacks bona fide intention. Therefore, the appeal is admitted on the

following substantial questions of law:

“A. Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in dismissing the

C.M.A. on the ground of lack of cogency in narration of events and absence

of specific details to establish the emotional harm suffered by the appellant

at the hands of the respondent?

6\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

B. Whether the Courts below were justified in denying a decree of

divorce to the appellant even after he had established acts of cruelty

committed by the respondent?”

9. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted reply that the

respondent is a graduate and that the marriage between the appellant and the

respondent was an arranged marriage held on 12.06.2013. Thereafter, the

couple commenced their matrimonial life at Chennai, where the appellant

was employed. The respondent discharged her duties as a dutiful wife.

However, the petitioner consistently demanded dowry and compelled her to

obtain money from her parents. Upon her refusal, he subjected her to ill-

treatment. Owing to such harassment, the respondent lodged a complaint

before the All Women Police Station, Tambaram, seeking resolution of the

issues. It later came to her knowledge that the petitioner had filed a

complaint before the Legal Services Authority, Salem. The police advised

the parties to settle the dispute. Within a short span of time, the petitioner

drove the respondent out of the matrimonial home without any valid reason

and subsequently vacated the house at Tambaram. Therefore, the respondent

lodged another complaint before the Tambaram Police Station. Thereafter,

7\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

the petitioner was not inclined for reunion, though the respondent always

expressed her willingness and intention to live with him. Having no other

option, she continued her studies. The petitioner paid interim maintenance

of Rs.12,000/-. Subsequently, based on false allegations, the petitioner came

forward with the petition for divorce.

10. The learned counsel for the responded further contended that the

petitioner falsely alleged that the respondent was suffering from split

personality disorder and that she mentally harassed him, due to which he

suffered mental agony. These allegations were made without any material

evidence. In fact, the respondent is hale and healthy, a double graduate, and

does not suffer from any psychological disorder. The petition for divorce

was filed only with an intention to dissolve the marriage on false grounds.

The Courts below rightly appreciated these facts and dismissed the petition,

which does not warrant any interference. Hence, the respondent prayed for

dismissal of the appeal as devoid of merit.

11. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner and the respondent

were married on 12.06.2013 at Arulmigu Arthanareeswarar Thirukoil,

8\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

Tiruchengode, and the marriage was an arranged one. At the time of

marriage, the petitioner was employed at Chennai, and therefore, the couple

commenced their matrimonial life at Tambaram. Out of the wedlock, they

have no children.

12. According to the petitioner, immediately after the marriage, the

respondent frequently quarrelled with him over trivial matters, due to which

he was unable to concentrate on his work. His superiors advised him to

undergo counselling along with his wife. Accordingly, both attended

counselling on 21.08.2013, however, the respondent did not cooperate, and

therefore, the counselling could not be completed. The counsellor’s report to

that effect was marked as Exhibit B5.

13. A perusal of Exhibit B5 reveals that within two months of

marriage, both parties attended counselling sessions before a psychologist /

cognitive behavioural therapist, wherein five sessions were suggested.

During the sessions, both parties expressed that they had several differences

leading to conflicts. They were advised to attend short-term counselling

sessions regularly. However, the second session was attended only after a

9\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

gap of ten months, and thereafter, the respondent refused to continue

counselling, leading to discontinuation of the sessions.

14. As per Exhibit P5, the counselling report shows that within two

months of married life, both parties attended therapy sessions and expressed

mutual conflicts. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that even prior to

counselling, the respondent had lodged a complaint before the All Women

Police Station, Tambaram, on 01.08.2014.

15. There was also a dispute regarding nomination in the insurance

policy. After the marriage, the respondent’s father passed away, and she

stayed at her mother’s house. During that time, she contacted her father-in-

law, P.W.2, and spoke angrily, threatening to commit suicide. Apprehending

danger, P.W.2 immediately went to the respondent’s parental home, where

she behaved aggressively and refused to speak with him. He further emerges

that prior to the marriage, the petitioner had taken an insurance policy

nominating his father and sister. Upon learning this, the respondent insisted

that their names be removed and that she be appointed as nominee. To

resolve the issue, the petitioner took another policy for Rs.50,000/- and

10\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

nominated the respondent. The policy document was handed over to the

respondent at her parental home by P.W.2. Thereafter, the respondent agreed

to rejoin the petitioner and resumed matrimonial life at Chennai.

16. Though certain facts were denied by the respondent during cross-

examination, she did not deny that the petitioner had taken an insurance

policy in her name. Within one year of marriage, the respondent again

lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Tambaram,

pursuant to which the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail. The petitioner

also approached the Legal Services Authority, Salem, which reflects that

misunderstandings had arisen between the parties within one year of

marriage, resulting in mutual complaints.

17. Before the Legal Services Authority, both parties appeared and

were advised to undergo family counselling. According to the petitioner, the

respondent did not cooperate. The petitioner further stated that the

respondent threatened to commit suicide, which caused him severe mental

depression. He also alleged that the respondent suffered from psychological

issues, but she refused to cooperate for counselling and therapy.

11\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

18. Before the Courts below, the petitioner produced Exhibits P1 to

P11. Exhibit P7 establishes that the insurance policy was taken in the

respondent’s name. Exhibits P10 reveal that the petitioner obtained

anticipatory bail based on the complaint lodged by the respondent against

him and his family members.

19. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was about 35 years old and

the respondent was about 29 years old. Both were mature individuals.

However, the evidence reveals that there was no love, affection, or

compatibility between them, which are essential ingredients for a successful

matrimonial life. The facts clearly establish that the marital relationship had

irretrievably broken down.

20. When this Court directed the parties to appear, the respondent

appeared in person, whereas the petitioner appeared through video

conferencing as he is employed abroad. It is not in dispute that the parties

have been living separately for nearly ten years. When this Court enquired

with the respondent, though she expressed willingness for reunion, she had

not taken any concrete steps towards reconciliation. On the contrary, she

12\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

repeatedly reiterated past events. The attitude of the respondent clearly

indicates that she is not emotionally stable and requires counselling to adapt

to day-to-day life. However, the Courts below failed to take into

consideration the conduct of the respondent, particularly her refusal to

cooperate in the counselling sessions.

21. At the earliest stage of the marriage itself, the events narrated by

the petitioner reveal that the respondent frequently quarrelled with him over

routine family matters. Without heeding the advice of elders, she lodged a

complaint before the Tambaram Police Station within three months of the

marriage. This conduct was not properly appreciated by the Courts below.

22. The petitioner contended that the complaint was lodged by the

respondent in a fit of anger. Though the respondent denied the same, the

evidence on record shows that she repeatedly quarrelled with the petitioner

and subjected him to ill-treatment. Cruelty need not always be established

by specific overt acts, it can also be inferred from consistent patterns of

conduct. A continuous course of irrational behaviour, when viewed

cumulatively, can amount to cruelty.

13\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

23. The facts and circumstances further establish that within a short

span of marriage, the respondent insisted upon removal of the names of the

petitioner’s father and sister as nominees in the LIC policy. To pacify her,

the petitioner took another insurance policy in her name. When P.W.2, the

father-in-law, attempted to mediate and resolve the issue, the respondent

treated him disrespectfully and refused to accept any compromise. Within

two months of marriage, both parties attended counselling sessions.

Thereafter, during the second session, the respondent refused to cooperate,

resulting in discontinuation of the counselling. This clearly indicates

persistent conflicts of opinion requiring professional intervention, which the

respondent was unwilling to accept. The petitioner has thus established that

from the very inception of marriage, the respondent subjected him to

harassment.

24. Mental cruelty includes conduct of such a nature that makes it

impossible for one spouse to live with the other. It may take various forms,

including constant humiliation, verbal abuse, harassment, neglect, threats, or

persistent indifference to the well-being of the other spouse.

14\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

25. In the present case, the parties never lived a peaceful marital life.

Within two months of marriage, they attended counselling sessions wherein

they expressed serious conflicts of opinion. Further counselling was

required, but the respondent refused to cooperate. Her continued conduct

caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would

be harmful to continue the matrimonial relationship. Consequently, the

petitioner approached the Court seeking divorce on the ground of mental

cruelty. The events and circumstances narrated by the petitioner sufficiently

establish that he was subjected to mental harassment by the respondent.

However, the Courts below failed to properly appreciate the facts and

evidence on record.

26. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the counselling report marked as Exhibit P5 was not properly appreciated by

the Courts below. Despite sufficient reasons being placed on record, the

Courts below erroneously concluded that the petitioner failed to establish

mental cruelty. Such findings are perverse and illegal. The evidence of

P.W.2 also reveals that there was no cordial relationship between the

15\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

husband and wife. It is also an admitted fact that the parties have been living

separately for nearly ten years and that no children were born out of the

wedlock.

27. Due to prolonged separation, the matrimonial relationship

between the petitioner and the respondent has irretrievably broken down.

There is no love or affection between the parties, and without these essential

elements, continuation of the matrimonial relationship is impossible.

Therefore, the reasons assigned by the petitioner clearly establish that he

suffered at the hands of the respondent and is entitled to a decree of divorce

as prayed for.

28. During the course of arguments and enquiry before this Court, the

respondent demanded more than one crore rupees as permanent alimony. It

was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner’s father owns only

about three acres of land. Similarly, the respondent’s father owns around

three acres, and it was admitted during cross-examination that her family

owns approximately seven acres in total. It is also not in dispute that the

petitioner has already been paying interim maintenance to the respondent. It

16\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

is brought to the knowledge of Court that respondent possessed 13

Sovereign of gold given by petitioner and same also not been denied.

29. Considering the assets and liabilities placed on record, it is seen

that the petitioner was employed in Canada and earning approximately

Rs.1,00,000/- per month. His visa expired on 02.09.2025, and he is required

to return to India and take care of his aged parents. It is further evident that

the petitioner began his career as a diploma holder, earning a modest

income, later continued his education and obtained a B.B.A. degree. At the

time of his early employment, his father owned only about 3.5 acres of land,

and through agricultural income, the family progressed. Thereafter, the

petitioner secured employment in a company, got married, and subsequently

went abroad for employment now came down to India as no Job work.

Respondent also employed in educational institution being Post Graduate.

30. Considering all these factors, the petitioner is directed to pay a

sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as permanent alimony

to the respondent, either by way of demand draft or by deposit to the credit

of H.M.O.P. No.151 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court,

17\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

Tiruchengode, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order.

31. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is allowed.

Consequently, Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

05.01.2026

Index : Yes/No

Neutral Citation : Yes/No

Speaking/Non Speaking order

rri

To

1. The II Additional District Judge, Tiruchengode.

2.The Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode.

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras.

18\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMSA. No.5 of 2025

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rri

CMSA.No.5 of 2025

and

CMP.No.4928 of 2025

05.01.2026

19\19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis