(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Court Act, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dindigul, in H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2024 dated 23.07.2025.)

M.D. Sumathi, J.

1. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is his wife.

2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed questioning the common judgment and decree dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dindigul, in H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2024, whereby the petition filed by the appellant/husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, came to be dismissed. The learned Judge, Family Court also dismissed I.A.No.4 of 2025 filed by the respondent/wife seeking permanent alimony of Rs.50,00,000/- under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and I.A.No.5 of 2025 filed by her seeking return of certain gold ornaments. The trial Court did not grant any relief to either side.

3. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 11.09.2002 according to the Hindu rites and customs. The parties have three children born through the wedlock, namely two daughters and one son. The first daughter was born on 08.07.2003, the second daughter on 13.02.2007 and the son on 10.10.2008, as reflected in the pleadings and evidence before the Family Court.

4. According to the appellant/husband, after the marriage, the parties initially lived together. He alleged that the respondent frequently picked up quarrels with him, went to her parental home and thereafter returned only after intervention by him and his relatives. He further alleged that the respondent compelled him to provide financial assistance to her relatives, abused and insulted him, refused to return to the matrimonial home on several occasions and threatened him with complaints to the police. It was further alleged that attempts made by the appellant and the elders of the family for reconciliation did not yield any result.

5. The appellant further relied upon the alleged incident in which the respondent was stated to have declared that she was not willing to continue the matrimonial relationship. According to him, the parties had been living separately for several years and there had been no meaningful matrimonial relationship between them. He therefore pleaded that the conduct of the respondent, viewed cumulatively, amounted to mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

6. The appellant relied upon oral evidence and Exs.P1 to P7. Among the documents relied upon were the marriage invitation, photograph, identity documents, the complaint said to have been given by the respondent and the alleged undertaking/affidavit relied upon by the appellant. The appeal memorandum specifically contends that the learned Judge, Family Court failed to properly appreciate Ex.P1 and Ex.P7 and also failed to give due weight to the evidence concerning the parties prolonged separation.

7. The respondent/wife resisted the petition. While admitting the factum of marriage and the birth of the three children, she denied the allegations of cruelty levelled against her. According to her, it was the appellant who had failed to properly maintain her and the children and who had subjected her to matrimonial difficulties. She alleged that the appellant and his family members had demanded money and jewellery and that the matrimonial discord was not attributable to her.

8. The respondent further alleged that the appellant had not properly maintained her and the children for several years and that the divorce petition had been instituted with an intention to contract another marriage. She also alleged that the appellant had retained jewellery belonging to her and that certain ornaments belonging to the children had also not been returned.

9. The respondent specifically claimed that, at the time of marriage, jewellery had been given to her by her parents. She further referred to jewellery connected with the ceremonies of the children and alleged that certain ornaments were retained by the appellant. In the proceedings, she claimed return of gold articles including a necklace weighing 3 sovereigns, haram weighing 4 sovereigns and a stone-studded chain weighing about 5 sovereigns, the balance claimed was total 12 sovereigns.

10. The respondent also filed I.A.No.4 of 2025 under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking permanent alimony of Rs. 50,00,000/-. She pleaded that, having regard to the duration of the marriage, her circumstances and the responsibility undertaken by her towards the children, she was entitled to permanent alimony.

11. She also filed I.A.No.5 of 2025 seeking return of the jewellery/articles claimed by her. The said application was resisted by the appellant, who disputed the claim and relied upon the fact that the respondent had already received certain jewellery through the intervention of the police authorities.

12. The Family Court framed the following questions for consideration:

                     (i) Whether the appellant/husband had established that the respondent/wife had subjected him to cruelty so as to entitle him to a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act?

                     (ii) Whether the respondent was entitled to permanent alimony of Rs.50,00,000/- under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act?

                     (iii) Whether the respondent had established her entitlement to the return of the gold ornaments/articles claimed in I.A.No.5 of 2025?

                     (iv) To what other reliefs were the parties entitled?

13. The parties agreed to have H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2024 and the connected interlocutory applications heard together. The appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and examined P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. The respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and her mother as R.W.2. No documentary evidence was marked on the side of the respondent. The trial Court has recorded the oral and documentary evidence in its judgment.

14. In his evidence, the appellant reiterated the allegations made in the petition. He referred to the frequent quarrels, the respondent's visits to her parental home, the alleged refusal to resume cohabitation, the police complaint and the alleged undertaking. He also stated that the parties had been living separately for several years.

15. P.W.2, according to the trial Court record, supported the appellant regarding the disputes between the parties, their prolonged separation and the alleged attempts at reconciliation.

16. R.W.1/wife admitted the marriage and the fact that the three children were with her. She also admitted certain circumstances relating to her staying away from the appellant. Significantly, in her cross-examination, she stated that she was not willing to live with the appellant. She further stated, in substance, that she is ready to live with him only for securing the welfare and maintenance of the children. Thus, whatever may have been stated in her chief-examination regarding the possibility of reunion, her cross-examination discloses that she was not personally willing to resume matrimonial life with the appellant.

17. This portion of the evidence assumes considerable significance. The respondent was not merely stating that she was temporarily residing separately or that she required certain conditions to be fulfilled before reunion. Her evidence disclosed that she had no present willingness to resume matrimonial cohabitation with the appellant and that her stated willingness was conditioned substantially upon the welfare of the children. The appeal memorandum also specifically relies upon her evidence that she was not willing to reunite with the appellant and did not intend to seek restitution of conjugal rights because she was not ready to live with him.

18. R.W.2, the mother of the respondent, also spoke about the matrimonial disputes and the period during which the parties had been living separately. The evidence of R.W.2 supports the fact that the parties had been living apart for a substantial period, though there is some variation in the evidence regarding the exact period of separation.

19. The learned Judge, Family Court, after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the appellant were not sufficiently proved and that the alleged quarrels and differences between the parties could not, in the facts of the case, be treated as matrimonial cruelty. The trial Court relied upon the principles stated in R.Sudha v. Senthil, reported in (2010) 3 MLJ 91, and C.R.Chenthilkumar v. K.Sutha, reported in 2008 (2) CTC 745, to hold that ordinary wear and tear of married life, trivial quarrels and ordinary matrimonial differences would not constitute cruelty.

20. Consequently, the trial Court answered the first issue against the appellant and dismissed H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2024.

21. In I.A.No.4 of 2025, the respondent had claimed Rs. 50,00,000/- as permanent alimony. The trial Court noticed that the respondent had not produced documentary material establishing the precise income or financial capacity of the appellant. The Court also noticed the absence of sufficient documentary material concerning the alleged properties or income of the appellant. In view of the dismissal of the main petition for divorce, the Family Court concluded that the prayer for permanent alimony under Section 25 did not survive and accordingly dismissed I.A.No.4 of 2025.

22. In I.A.No.5 of 2025, the respondent claimed return of the gold ornaments. The Family Court noticed the absence of documentary proof establishing the ownership, entrustment and continued possession of the specific ornaments claimed. The Court further noticed the inconsistencies regarding the quantity of jewellery and the fact that the respondent had already received certain jewellery through the police authorities. The Family Court therefore held that the respondent had not established her entitlement to the balance jewellery and dismissed I.A.No.5 of 2025.

23. The present appeal is directed against the above findings. The principal grounds urged by the appellant are that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective; that Ex.P1 and Ex.P7 were rejected on untenable grounds; that the prolonged separation was not properly appreciated; that the evidence of P.W.2 was not given due weight; that the respondent had herself admitted that she was unwilling to resume cohabitation; and that the cumulative circumstances established mental cruelty and breakdown of the matrimonial relationship.

24. The grounds further emphasise that the respondent, in cross-examination, admitted that she was not willing to reunite with the appellant and that she did not propose to seek restitution of conjugal rights because she was not prepared to live with him. The appellant contends that this evidence was a crucial circumstance which the Family Court failed to appreciate in its proper perspective.

25. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We have carefully considered the pleadings, the oral evidence, the documentary evidence, the judgment of the Family Court and the grounds of appeal.

26. The following points arise for consideration in this appeal:

                     (i) Whether the appellant has established that the respondent's conduct, viewed cumulatively, amounts to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act?

                     (ii) Whether the respondent is entitled to permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, if so, to what amount?

                     (iii) Whether the respondent has established her entitlement to the return of the jewellery/articles claimed in I.A.No.5 of 2025?

27. It is necessary to bear in mind that cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) cannot be determined by applying a rigid or mechanical formula. The entire matrimonial relationship has to be examined. An isolated quarrel may not constitute cruelty. At the same time, a series of circumstances, when viewed cumulatively, may demonstrate that the matrimonial relationship has ceased to have any meaningful existence.

28. The Family Court was right in observing that ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life cannot by itself constitute cruelty. The decisions relied upon by the Family Court correctly state that trivial irritations, normal quarrels and ordinary differences are not sufficient to dissolve a marriage on the ground of cruelty. But that proposition does not mean that the Court is required to examine each incident in isolation and disregard the cumulative effect of the matrimonial history.

29. In the present case, the parties have three children. The evidence shows that the parties have been living separately for several years. More importantly, the respondent herself, in cross-examination, has stated that she is not willing to live with the appellant. Her evidence makes it clear that her willingness, if any, is not a willingness to resume matrimonial life for its own sake but is conditioned upon the welfare and maintenance of the children.

30. The distinction is important. A spouse cannot be compelled to resume matrimonial cohabitation. Equally, when a spouse who is resisting dissolution of marriage expressly states in evidence that she is not willing to live with the other spouse, the Court cannot ignore that statement while assessing the present state of the matrimonial relationship.

31. The fact that the respondent is prepared to consider living with the appellant only for the sake of the children does not demonstrate restoration of the marital relationship. On the contrary, it establishes that the matrimonial bond, as a relationship between husband and wife, has ceased to have the substance ordinarily associated with marital companionship.

32. The appellant has also relied upon the long period of separation. The appeal grounds specifically state that the parties have been living separately for more than three and a half years and that the respondent had not taken any meaningful step towards reunion.

33. In 2023 SCC Online SC 497(Shri Rakesh Raman V.Kavita) and in CMA(MD).No.967 of 2021, this Division Bench, in its earlier judgment dated 19.08.2026, considered a case where the parties had lived separately for a long period and there had been no effective step towards reunion. The Court observed that long separation, absence of cohabitation, breakdown of meaningful matrimonial bonds and existing bitterness are circumstances which can be taken into account in assessing cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia). The Court ultimately held that continuation of such a marriage, where the relationship had broken down beyond repair, would serve no meaningful matrimonial purpose and granted divorce.

34. We are conscious that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, by itself, is not an independently enumerated statutory ground under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The question is whether the proved circumstances, including prolonged separation, absence of matrimonial cohabitation and the respondent's categorical unwillingness to resume marital life, when considered cumulatively with the proved matrimonial disputes, establish mental cruelty.

35. In our considered view, the evidence does not disclose a mere temporary disagreement between the parties. There has been prolonged separation. There have been allegations and counterallegations, police proceedings, attempts at intervention by elders and, most significantly, an express statement by the respondent in crossexamination that she is not willing to live with the appellant. Her statement that she would be prepared to be with him only for the sake of the children reinforces the conclusion that there is no subsisting desire to continue the matrimonial relationship as husband and wife.

36. The appellant has therefore established, on the preponderance of probabilities applicable to matrimonial proceedings, that the matrimonial relationship has suffered such a degree of deterioration that continuation of the marriage has become oppressive and devoid of meaningful matrimonial companionship.

37. We accordingly hold that the appellant has made out the ground of mental cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. On an overall consideration of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Judge, Family Court was not justified in dismissing the petition for divorce. The marriage has continued for more than two decades. The parties have been living separately for a substantial period. There is no effective matrimonial cohabitation. The respondent has categorically stated in crossexamination that she is not willing to live with the appellant and that her willingness, if any, is only in the context of the welfare of the children. The evidence also establishes continuing matrimonial discord and absence of any realistic prospect of restoration of normal marital life.

38. We are not granting divorce merely because the parties have differences of opinion. Nor are we treating every allegation made by the appellant as proved. The decree rests upon the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances, particularly the prolonged separation, the absence of meaningful matrimonial companionship and the respondent's own categorical statement regarding her unwillingness to resume matrimonial life.

39. In the circumstances, compelling the parties to continue in the legal relationship of husband and wife would not serve the purpose of the institution of marriage. The marital relationship has broken down to such an extent that continuation of the legal tie has become a source of continuing matrimonial distress rather than a meaningful relationship. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed, subject to the financial protection granted to the respondent under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

40. As regards to permanent alimony,it is relevant to note at the outset that the respondent/wife had filed I.A.No.4 of 2025 seeking permanent alimony under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.The said application came to be dismissed by the learned judge of the Family Court, essentially on the ground that the petition filed by the appellant/husband seeking dissolution of marriage itself had been dismissed.In the present appeal,however,this court for the reasons recorded , has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant/husband is entitled to a decree of divorce.In such circumstances,the claim of the respondent/wife for permanent alimony for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 requires consideration afresh by this court,notwithstanding the dismissal of I.A.No.4 of 2025 by the court below.

41. In determining the said claim, this Court has also kept in view the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has prescribed a uniform format for the disclosure of assets and liabilities and has emphasised that the financial position of both parties must be placed before the Court through a proper affidavit of disclosure so that the Court can arrive at a fair and realistic determination of maintenance. The disclosure is required to contain material particulars relating to income, expenditure, assets, liabilities and other relevant financial circumstances of the parties.

42. In the present case, the Assets and Liabilities Affidavit placed before the Court does not strictly conform to the format and disclosure requirements indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. The affidavit does not provide complete and satisfactory particulars in the manner contemplated therein with regard to the income, assets, liabilities, expenditure and other financial particulars of the parties. Consequently, the Court does not have before it a comprehensive disclosure of the financial circumstances of the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife in the format prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

43. The non-compliance with the prescribed format, however, cannot by itself result in denial of the respondent's claim for reasonable financial provision. The Court is required to determine the amount on the basis of the material available on record, while bearing in mind the circumstances of both parties and the principles governing determination of maintenance and permanent alimony.

44. In assessing the quantum, this Court has therefore considered the duration of the marriage, the respective financial circumstances disclosed in the proceedings, the needs and reasonable requirements of the respondent, the earning and financial capacity of the appellant to the extent established from the available evidence, the liabilities, if any, disclosed on record, the fact that the parties have three children and, significantly, the fact that the respondent has been substantially undertaking their day-to-day care and welfare.

45. The fact that the respondent has been taking care of three children born through the wedlock is a relevant circumstance. The responsibility of upbringing and care of three children necessarily involves recurring expenditure towards food, education, medical requirements, clothing and other necessities. The financial contribution required for such responsibility has also been kept in view while determining the permanent alimony.

46. At the same time, the Court cannot proceed merely on the basis of the amount claimed by the respondent. The determination has to be reasonable and proportionate to the financial capacity of the appellant and the circumstances of both parties. In view of the incomplete and noncompliant disclosure of assets and liabilities, the Court has assessed the available material cautiously and has applied the principles relating to determination of maintenance as set out in Rajnesh v. Neha.

47. It is also relevant to note that permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not intended to be punitive. The object is to secure reasonable financial protection to the spouse who is entitled to such relief, having regard to the circumstances of the parties. The Court is therefore required to strike a balance between the reasonable needs of the respondent and the financial capacity and obligations of the appellant.

48. Having regard to the above factors, particularly the duration of the matrimonial relationship, the fact that the parties have three children, the responsibility undertaken by the respondent in taking care of the children, the financial circumstances emerging from the evidence, and the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, this Court considers that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs only) would constitute reasonable and equitable permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

49. The quantum is thus fixed after taking into consideration the available financial material and the circumstances of both parties, notwithstanding that the Assets and Liabilities Affidavit filed before the Court does not fully comply with the disclosure format prescribed in Rajnesh v. Neha. The amount so determined also takes into account the fact that the respondent has been taking care of the three children born through the wedlock and has been shouldering the corresponding financial and caregiving responsibilities. Accordingly, the respondent/wife is entitled to permanent alimony of Rs.25,00,000/- under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

50. It is clarified that the aforesaid amount is awarded as permanent alimony to the respondent/wife and is in addition to and without prejudice to any independent right of the respondent or the children in respect of maintenance, educational expenses, medical expenses or any other monetary relief which may have been granted or which may be claimed or granted in any other proceeding in accordance with law. Any adjustment or appropriation, if directed by a competent Court in respect of amounts payable under any other proceeding, shall be governed by the order passed in such proceeding.

51. Insofar as the claim of the respondent/wife for return of her jewels and other articles is concerned, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court in rejecting the said claim. The respondent has failed to establish, by acceptable and cogent evidence, the nature and quantity of the jewels allegedly retained by the appellant/husband. Significantly, during the cross-examination of the appellant/husband, no specific question was put to him with regard to the alleged retention of the jewels or the particular quantity of jewels now claimed by the respondent. The absence of any such specific suggestion or cross-examination assumes significance, particularly when the respondent seeks a direction for return of a substantial quantity of jewels.

52. Further, the documentary evidence relied upon by the respondent does not support the claim now put forth by her. In Ex.P-4, the respondent had stated that only 3 sovereigns of jewels were in the possession of the appellant/husband. However, in the present proceedings, she has raised a claim with regard to 12 sovereigns of jewels. The substantial variation in the quantity claimed has not been satisfactorily explained. More importantly, in Ex.P-5, the respondent has stated that all the jewels had been returned. The statement contained in Ex.P-5 is wholly inconsistent with the present claim that 12 sovereigns of jewels continue to remain with the appellant/husband. Thus, the statements made by the respondent in Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5, when considered along with her present claim, disclose material contradictions regarding the very existence and quantity of the jewels allegedly retained by the appellant.

53. The respondent has also not produced any independent or reliable evidence to establish that the alleged 12 sovereigns of jewels were entrusted to or continued to be in the possession of the appellant/husband. Mere assertion, in the absence of supporting evidence, cannot be made the basis for directing return of articles. The burden lay upon the respondent to establish her claim by acceptable evidence, which she has failed to discharge. In view of the material contradictions, the absence of any specific questions in crossexamination and the lack of independent proof substantiating the present claim, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application seeking return of the jewels. Hence, the finding of the learned Trial Court rejecting the respondent's claim for return of the jewels and articles does not call for any interference in the present appeal.

54. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the common judgment and decree dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dindigul, in H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2024 is set aside;

(i) The marriage between the appellant, and the respondent, according to Hindu rites and customs, is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955;

(ii) The order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2025 is set aside and the prayer sought for in I.A.No.4 of 2025 is allowed in part. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs only) to the respondent as permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, this decree of divorce will come into force only on the deposit of the said amount to the credit of H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2024 on the file of Family Court, Dindigul. The said amount can be withdrawn by the respondent/wife.

(iii) With regard to I.A.No.5 of 2025, the finding of the trial court is thereby confirmed with regard to the claim raised by the respondent/wife regarding return of jewels.

(iv) There shall be no order as to costs.