Accordingly, this Civil Miscellamneous Appeal is allowed and the decree granted in H.M.O.P.No.595 of 2018 by the Family Court,Madurai decree dated 03.10.2018 ia hereby set aside. Consequently,connected Civil Miscellamneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.V.J.,) (K.K.R.K.J.,) Index : Yes / No

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CMA(MD)No.1033 of 2018 and
C. M.P.(MD).No.10796 of 2018
Jeyabirundha … Appellant
vs.
Satheesh Rajakumar … Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2018 passed in H.M.O.P.No.595 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Udhaya Kumar
For Respondent : No appearance
J U D G M E N T
(Order of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.)
The wife filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the decree of divorce granted on the ground of cruelty against her vide impugned judgment and decree dated 03.10.2018 passed in H.M.O.P.No.
595 of 2018, on the file of the Family Court, Madurai.
2.For the sake of convenience and clarity of facts the parties shall be referred as per their status in the H.M.O.P.No.595 of 2018. The appellant is wife and the respondent is husband.
3. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 29.08.2014 after viewing the matrimonial site. The appellant is M.Sc., M.Phil. B.Ed., degree holder.The respondent has completed B.E., degree at the time of the marriage and pursuing his M.A., degree. After marriage, the appellant and the respondent were living in the house of the respondent along with his parents and she worked as lecturer in a private college and on 08.07.2015, a female child was born. After the birth of the child, according to the respondent, the appellant has not performed her duty as a dutiful wife. On 15.10.2015, the appellant’s family members refused to send the appellant along with the respondent on the premise that they would send her only after 5 months from the birth of the child. Thereafter the appellant refused to come and on a particular occassion, the appellant and her family members scolded the respondent stating that the respondent has no permanent income and he was depending on the income of his parents and asked to stay at the residence of the appellant and work from the said residence and gave a false complaint on 10.09.2016 before Sivagangai All women Police station with false allegation of dowry demand. The police officers compromised the matter and asked to arrange a separate residence.As per the arrangement on 04.10.2016 a separate residence was arranged at Dindigul N.S. Nagar and the respondent arranged a job for the appellant at SBM college. In the said house the appellant asked har parents to visit frequently and live with her without the permission of the respondent. In the said house, the appellant is said to have ignored him and asked to have food in hotel. Since the respondent had been fasting for the Sabarimalai temple festival, the respondent tolerated the same for more than 45 days. At that time the appellant scolded the respondent and she left the home on 26.11.2017 after throwing off her mangulstra. Thereafter, the respondent met her on
10.01.2018 in her residence and pleaded to come with him. She scolded him that he has no permanent job and thereafter gave another complaint to the Superintendent of Police making allegation against him and his family members and his earnest steps to live with her ended in vain.
4. Per contra the appellant stated that the respondent and his family members persistently demanded more dowry and caused cruelty to her and hence he left the matrimonial home on two occasions. She specifically stated that she was working in a college and discharged her wifely duties and the family members of the respondent demanded more dowry and harassed her to no end. She also denied the allegation made against her. Finding no other way to tolerate the harassment, she was forced to give a complaint before the police. Inspite of that she filed the H.M.O.P.SR.Nos.1275 of 2018 and 4213 of 2018, under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of the conjugal rights and the same was returned to present it before the proper court. Apart from that after the receipt of the notice of enquiry issued on the basis of her police complaint, the respondent filed a divorce petition. She is ready to live with him. Hence, she seeks to set aside the decree of divorce.
5. To prove the case, husband examined 3 witnesses and marked Ex.Pl to Ex.P7 and wife examined herself as R. W.l and marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.
6. The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence altogether has allowed the petition filed by the husband and granted divorce by passing the impugned judgment. Challenging the same, wife has filed this appeal.
7.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Judge gave a finding that the respondent has not produced any material to prove the allegation made against the appellant in paragraph No.9. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge without dismissing the petition filed by the respondent, erroneously has held that the appellant has not proved her case, by wrongly shifting the burden of proof upon the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
7.1. The learned counsel would further submit that the learned trial Judge has held that the appellant filed the criminal complaint against the respondent and his family members with false allegation. The appellant has not proved the allegation making the said complaint and therefore, the act of the appellant made the complaint against the respondent and his family members amounts to cruelty. The said proposition of law is not correct. The learned trial Judge failed to see that there was no finding that the appellant made a false complaint either from in Court or to the police officers. Therefore, finding of the learned Judge that the appellant made false complaint is not correct and granting of decree on the said ground is not correct. The learned trial Judge also wrongly found that the appellant made the allegation relating to the pledging of jewels. The learned trial Judge in paragraph No.10 found that the dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent only on account of the fact that the husband was jobless and was depending upon the pension amount of his parents. After recording the above fact that the respondent was not inclined to work, the learned trial Judge found fault with the appellant that she has not established her allegation. The learned trial Judge also erroneously found that making complaint caused mental cruelty to the respondent, when there was no evidence to show that allegation made by the petitioner was false. The learned trial Judge has failed to see that the respondent has filed a petition seeking remedy of divorce and therefore, he is bound to prove his case without falling back on the weakness of the respondent’s case and he failed to prove his own case. The learned trial Judge failed to consider the bonafide offer made by the appellant for re-union and also she had lived with him after the closure of the complaint by the resport dated 27.09.2016 by condoning the act of the respondent. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
8.Now, the question is whether the impugned judgment of the learned trial Juge in granting decree for divorce against the appellant is correct?

9.The husband has pleaded that (i)the wife caused mental cruelty by not showing the child to him; (ii) made the complaint to the police officers; (iii) scolded him as a begger and (iv) he lived with the pension amount unhot unling of his parents without working and forced him to live with her parents and her parents are also staying with her and caused cruelty to him and the same was questioned by him on 26.11.2017 and she allegedly threw off the mangalsuthra and left the house and living separately. The learned trial Judge in paragraph No.9 recorded a finding that there was no material evidence to prove the said allegations and the same is as follows:
vjph; kDjhuh; kPJ $wg;gl;Ls;s Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fs; rk;ke;jkhd NtW
Mtzq;fs; vJTk; kDjhuh; jug;gpy; jhf;fy; nra;agg;ltpy;iy.
9.1. After the said finding, the learned trial Judge has not made any discussion about the allegation made in the petition to grant divorce. But, the learned trial Judge heavily placed reliance on the police complaint given by the wife against the husband and his family members and the closure report marked under Ex.R2, Ex.R4 and EX.R5 and has held that the complaint was made with false allegation and there is no reason on the part of the wife to make the false allegation and ordering the parties to live together would amount to miscarriage of justice. The learned trial Judge’s said discussion on the wife’s case without any evidence to prove the case of the husband amounts to perversity. Further, in none of the above said respondent’s documents, there is whisper that the wife has made false allegation. She made the first complaint on
27.09.2016 and the same was enquired on 06.10.2016 and
15.10.2016 and the same was closed recording the
undertaking made by the husband that he is perepared to take her after obtaining the job in Dindigul and also undertook to redeem her jewels. The material parts of the report is as follows:
kDjhuh; jghy; %yk; mDg;gpa Gfhh; kDtpid Gfhuhf VwW;f;nfhz;L mjw;F kD urPJ vz;.311/16 Mf nfhLj;J ,U Njjpfspy; tprhuiz nra;jjpy; vjph;kDjhuh; ,d;Dk; 2 khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; jdf;F Xh; ey;y Ntiyia Njbf;nfhz;L kJiuapy; jdpahf tPL ghh;j;J jd; kidtp Foe;ijia mioj;Jr; nrd;W ey;ygbahf Nrh;e;J tho;tjhfTk; NkYk; ,e;j 2 khj fhy ,ilntspapy; jdf;F Neuk; fpilf;Fk; NghJ jd; kidtp gps;isfis ghh;j;Jr; nry;tjhfTk; jd; kidtpf;F jpUkzj;jpd;NghJ mtuJ ngw;Nwhh;fs; Nghl;l 55 gTd; eiffspy; 9 gTd; eiffis jd; FLk;g #o;epiy fhuzkhf thq;fp mlF itj;jpUe;jjhfTk; me;j eiffspy; 4 gTid ij nghq;fypd; NghJ jpUg;gpj; jUtjhfTk; kPjKs;s 5 gTd; eifia nfhQ;r ehl;fspy; jpUg;gpj; jUtjhfTk; $wpaij kDjhuh; Vw;Wf;nfhz;lhh;. NkYk; fztd; kidtp ,UtUk; rkhjhdkhfp Nrh;e;J thor; nry;tjhy; kDjhuh; jhd; nfhLj;j Gfhh; kD kPJ
Nky;eltbf;if Ntz;lhk; vd;W
Nfl;Lf;nfhz;lgbahy; ,k;kD kPjhd Nky; eltbf;if ,j;Jld; Kbf;fg;gl;lJ.

9.2.From reading the above closure report, there are no circumstances to infer that wife made a false complaint. Subsequent to the above closure report, both lived together and both got job in Dindigul and during their stay in the separate residence, the parents of the wife intruded in their life by making frequent visit to her house. According to the husband that amounts to mental cruelty. This Court is unable to accept the same. It is the duty of the respondent/husband to treat the parents of the appellant/wife as his own parents. Mere visit of the parents of the appellant to their daughter’s house is not a cruelty without any material to show that they caused any disturbance to their matrimonial
life.
10.The allegation of the respondent that the appellant has not performed her marital duties is not correct. Even he admitted in his evidence that she was doing her marital obligations. The same is as follows:
ehd; jhf;fy; nra;j kDtpy; vjph;kDjhuh; rikay; nra;tJ fpilahJ vdW;k; mjdhy; vdf;F kdghjpg;G Vw;gl;lJ vdW;
Fwpg;gpl;L ,Uf;fpNwd; vd;why; rhpjhd;. Mdhy; vjph;kDjhuh; njhlhe;J rikay; nra;J vdf;F nra;aNtz;ba mbg;gil Njitfis nra;J te;jhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;.
11. The contention of the appellant that without going for any job the husband harassed her is acceptable from his own admission in the proof affidavit that he never went for any job.
12.Mere filing of police complaint is not a ground to grant divorce. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that mere filing of criminal cases by the wife does not constitute cruelty without any finding that the allegation made by the wife his false and unjustified. Even in the pleadings, the husband has not made any proper pleadings that the allegations made by his wife in the complaint are false and the said allegations had tarnished his image and the reputation of this family. From the closure report, it is seen that the wife’s allegation against the husband that he took away the jewels and pledged the same and has not redeemed and also he was not doing any job are all proved facts. Even he admitted that he had no job. The allegation of the dowry demand also was proved through the document marked by the appellant and through her oral evidence. He admitted the receipt of the amount during marriage. But he disputed the receipt of it as dowry. To prove the receipt of dowry, Ex. R1 is marked. Ex.R1 is the photograph and the same was marked with negative and the same is admissible. But, the learned Judge has not considered the same holding that the same is not relevant to prove the demand and acceptance of dowry. They took a stand that they received the amount to meet out the marriage expenditure. According to the wife, it was received as dowry.
12. 1.Almost in all matrimonial cases, the decision hinges on the testimony of the oral evidence. The partys will trade accusations against each other. Therefore, the Court has to take a balanced decision on the basis of the oath against oath. To believe the deposition of any of the parties, the Court usually would consider the factual circumstances, either established through the oral evidence or through the documents. On the basis of the appreciation of the oral evidence and the proved circumstances, the Court has to record a finding of fact. A fact is said to have been proved as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so propable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. The learned trial Judge has held that the factum of allegation made against the wife to seek divorce is without material. When the evidence of the wife supported with the documents to infer that there was a demand of dowry, harassment made by the husband and his relatives, the learned trial Judge has not recorded a finding that a false complaint was made. Even after the harassment made by the husband and her complaint dated 10.09.2016 and the closure report, she condoned all the harassment of the husband and in-laws and she started living with her husband. Thereafter, two years, husband was not doing any job and harassed her even after birth of child. She was working as a guest lecturer in the private college and living with the meagre salary without any contribution from her husband and unable to tolerate his further harassment made the second complaint and on knowing the same, he filed this divorce petition. Therefore, there were no circumstances to presume that it ois a frivolous complaint.
12. 3.The Court below failed to see the bonafide offer for re-union was made by wife even after filing the divorce petition. After burying the hatchet condoning the harassment of the husband and in-laws, she filed H.M.O.P.Sr.No.1275 of 2018 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The same was returned to file before the concerned court and she filed H.M.O.P.No.595 of 2018 and thereafter, he filed the counter expressing his willingness for re-union. The dispute between the parties was not to the extent of unworkable one. The learned Judge found that the dispute arose between them was only relating to the non-employment of the husband and he depended upon the pension amount of his parents. The allegation made by the husband even though not proved and the same is in the nature of usual trivial issues of marital life. They are blessed with a female child and therefore, the learned trial Judge should have considered the welfare of child before granting divorce apart from the fact that the matrimonial discord is not on account of grave dispute between them. In the family Court jurisdiction we are sitting on the matrimonial life of couples. Matrimonial tie is the basis of human society. Matrimonial relationship is like a “mud clay pot”. If it is placed before the Court at the stage of small crack, the Court can easily mend it and put them back on rails. The small and piddling issues can be thrashed out and make the couple understand the welfare the child and bring them together. Only if it is irretrively broken down, it is inevitable to grant divorce. In this case, this Court does not find any serious issues between the couple. Therefore, the learned trial Judge failed to consider that the dispute between the parties is only trivial and minor in nature since the husband was unemployed. In this aspect, it is relevant to refer the following paragraph of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 759 where it is observed as follows:
Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other’s fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage.
13. The learned trial Judge also failed to consider the welfare of the child as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Achin
Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2024 SCC Online
SC 759 where it is held as follows:
In matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned.
14. This Court also in C.M.A.(MD).No.291 of 2024 in paragraph
No. 19 has observed as follows:
19. Conclusion:
The marriage is a heavenly union of two souls, two families and sometimes two diverse cultures. There would be some couple, meeting each other before their marriage and sort out all their major issues that loomed large and would make the marriage proposal work. Then they enter into a blissful marriage. They are also blessed with a child. Now their marriage is on the rocks, not because of any major issues, or astronomical issues, but of the trivial issues. Instead of sitting together and clearing the air, they are not only spoiling their life, but the life of innocent lamb, the divine gift namely the child. In marriage, often you have to lose an argument in order to win your spouse. The worst pain in life is when some one “you know” turns into some one “you knew”. The couple should think twice before parting, for the sake of their child. If the child is deprived of the love of a parent, there is always a danger of the child drifting away from the mainstream. The child needs not only feeding, but a decent standard of living and it has to be protected in every way. The couple should consider to save the marriage and not to break the marriage for the future of their child. They should burry the hatchet and start a new life, otherwise the Court has to find out a way and pass an order to protect the child. How many childless couples are longing to beget a child. The fighting couple should rise above hate and come to terms.
15. In view of the above discussion, the learned trial Judge failed to consider the evidence adduced by the appellant in proper manner and granted decree for divorce even after holding that there was no material available to substantiate the allegation made against the wife in the divorce petition. Therefore, this Court is entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence and deliver a different finding by exercising the power under Order 41 Rule 33 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravikumar vs. Julmidevi reported in 2010 4 SCC 476. Therefore, there is merit in the appeal and hence, the appeal is fit to be allowed and the decree of divorce granted vide impugned judgment dated 03.10.2018 is liable to be set aside.
16. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellamneous Appeal is allowed and the decree granted in H.M.O.P.No.595 of 2018 by the Family Court,Madurai decree dated 03.10.2018 ia hereby set aside. Consequently,connected Civil Miscellamneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(P.V.J.,) (K.K.R.K.J.,)
Index : Yes / No .11.2025
Neutral Citation : Yes / No vsg/sbn
To
1.The Family Court, Madurai.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 
P.VELMURUGAN , J. and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
vsg/sbn
COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
CMA(MD)No.1033 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD).No.10796 of 2018
DATED : .11.2025