Madras High CourtCMSA/5/2008dismissed

S. Padma v. Tp Ravichandran

2021-02-03Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.02.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM C.M.S.A.No.5 of 2008 S.Padma ... Appellant/Respondent/Respondent Vs.

T.P.Ravichandran .. Respondent/Appellant/Petitioner Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 28 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 r/w.100 C.P.C., against the order in C.M.A.No.21 of 2005 dated 31.07.2007 by the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.2), Salem, reversing the judgment in H.M.O.P.No.13 of 2002 dated 07.01.2005 by the learned Subordinate Judge at Mettur.

For Appellant : Mr.J.Selvarajan For Respondent : Mr.P.Jagadeesan

J U D G M E N T

The order passed in C.M.A.No.21 of 2005 dated 31.07.2007, is under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous second appeal.

2. At the time of admitting the appeal, no question of law is framed. The substantial question of law raised in the grounds for appeal by the appellant is whether the Courts below rightly held that the appellant had caused cruelty against the respondent. Whether the Courts below has rightly held that the respondent had proved the adultery committed by the appellant. Whether the Court below come to a conclusion that the appellant and the respondent had lived happily or not. Whether the Court below rightly come to a conclusion that the respondent had proved the case for divorce.

3. The facts in nutshell reveals that the respondent husband filed H.M.O.P.No.13 of 2002, seeking dissolution of marriage. The Trial Court dismissed the divorce petition. The respondent husband filed C.M.A.No.21 of 2005 and the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted dissolution of marriage. The decree of divorce granted in the year 2007 is continued. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned counsel for the respondent made a submission that the appellant and the respondent are separately living for the past more than 24 years. Thus, there is an irretrievable break down of marriage which is also a reason for the purpose of confirming the decree of divorce. This apart, the respondent is also aged about more than 56 years.

5. Beyond all these reasons, the appellant has not raised any substantial question of law which is mandatory under Section 100 of C.P.C. The substantial question of law raised are related to the factual aspects and those facts were already adjudicated both by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. The facts regarding the grounds for divorce were elaborately adjudicated by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and therefore, in the absence of any substantial question of law which is mandatory, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. Further, the appellant and the respondent are living separately for more than 25 years.

6. Under these circumstances, the appeal deserves no merit and consideration. Consequently the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2007 passed in C.M.A.No.21 of 2005 stands confirmed and C.M.S.A.No.5 of 2008 stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gsk To 1.The learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.2).

Salem.

2.The learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur.

+1cc to Mr.P.Jagadeesan, Advocate, S.R.No.5836 C.M.S.A.No.5 of 2008 PVS(CO) CB(03/09/2021) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/