L.SANTHANAKRISHNAN Vs. T.NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The marriage between Santhanakrishnan and Nirmala was solemnized on 1/7/2018 at Arulmighu Pasupatheeswara Temple, Karur as per Hindu rites and customs. No child was born through the wedlock. The parties are remaining separate since 9/12/2020. Seeking restitution of conjugal rights, Nirmala filed H.M.O.P No.29 of 2021 before the Sub Court, Karur. It was later transferred to the Family Court, Karur and re-numbered as H.M.O.P.No.445 of 2023. Santhanakrishnan had filed H.M.O.P.No.400 of 2021 before the Family Court, Coimbatore. It was later transferred to the Principal Sub Court, Karur and re-numbered as H.M.O.P.No.138 of 2022 and again, transferred to the Family Court, Karur and re-numbered as H.M.O.P.No. 443 of 2023. Both the H.M.O.Ps were tried together. Santhanakrishnan examined himself as P.W.1. Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked on his side. Nirmala examined herself as R.W.1. Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 were marked on her side. After consideration of the evidence on record, the Family Judge, Karur allowed H.M.O.P.No.445 of 2023 and dismissed H.M.O.P.No.443 of 2023 vide common order dtd. 6/2/2024. Challenging the same, these civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed. C.M.A.(MD)No.460 of 2024 is directed against the order made in H.M.O.P.No.443 of 2023. C.M.A.(MD)No.1515 of 2024 is directed against the order made in H.M.O.P.No.445 of 2023.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / husband reiterated all the contentions set out in the memoranda of grounds of appeals. He pointed out that the evidence on record would lead one to the irresistible conclusion that the grounds projected in the divorce petition are well founded. He also added that the relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down and that no purpose will be served in keeping the marital relationship alive. He relied on the decision rendered in C.M.S.A No.40 of 2008 (Ravi Kumar Vs. Malarvhizhi @ S.Kokila) in support of his contentions. He called upon this Court to set aside the impugned orders and allow these appeals.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the impugned order is well reasoned and that it does not call for interference.