S.Naveen M/s.Ajmal Associates, A.Arumugam ,V. GEORGE RAJA,ADDL. TYPED SET FILED USR. 3545 DT 28.01.2026 vs M.Nitharshani — CMA(MD)/696/2024
Case under U/s 19(1) of Family Court Act Section 1924. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 15th June 2026.
CNR: HCMD010358652024
Filing Number
CMA(MD)/25119/2024
Filing Date
26-Mar-2024
Registration No
CMA(MD)/696/2024
Registration Date
24-Jun-2024
Judge
Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh , Honourable Mr Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan
Coram
Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh , Honourable Mr Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL ( 167 )
Sub-Category
S. 19 of the Family Court Act 1984. ( 11 )
Judicial Branch
Judicial Section
Decision Date
15-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 16-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.S.Naveen M/s.Ajmal Associates, A.Arumugam ,V. GEORGE RAJA,ADDL. TYPED SET FILED USR. 3545 DT 28.01.2026
Respondent(s)
-
1.M.Nitharshani
Adv. G.MANIKANDAN ,FOR SOLE RESPONDENT SR.26086 DT.25.07.2024 1123
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-Jun-2026
Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand VENKATESH,Honourable Mr Justice K.K. RamakrishnanView PDF
Summary: S. Naveen v. M. Nitharshani (CMA(MD)/696/2024) Court: Madurai Bench, Madras High Court Date: June 15, 2026 Decision The High Court dismissed the husband's appeals for divorce and upheld the wife's decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The court found the husband's allegations of schizophrenia against the wife entirely unsubstantiated by medical evidence. Key Findings On Mental Illness Allegations: - No credible medical evidence established the wife suffered from schizophrenia or any incurable mental disorder - Medical records were only photocopies of prescriptions lacking diagnostic reports - The alleged mental illness emerged only after pregnancy confirmation; the couple lived harmoniously for 8 months prior - The court found the schizophrenia allegations to be a calculated fabrication designed to facilitate divorce On Cruelty: The husband failed to plead or prove any specific abnormal conduct by the wife constituting cruelty. The mere unsubstantiated allegation of mental illness, without supporting evidence or demonstrated behavioral impact, cannot ground divorce. On Separation Arguments: The court rejected that six years of separation alone constitutes mental cruelty, particularly where the separation resulted from the husband's unilateral withdrawal based on unfounded apprehensions. A spouse cannot create the breakdown and then exploit it as grounds for divorce. Outcome - Divorce petition: Dismissed - Restitution of conjugal rights: Confirmed in wife's favor - Jewellery: 40 sovereigns to be returned (confirmed) - Mangalsutra: Direction to return set aside as inconsistent with restitution decree This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Apr-2026
oOo
Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh , Honourable Mr Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan
-
02-Apr-2026
Final Hearing Cases
Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh , Honourable Mr Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan
-
24-Mar-2026
Cma - Cases
Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh , Honourable Mr. Justice P.dhanabal
-
03-Mar-2026
For Reporting Settlement
Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan , Honourable Ms.Justice R. Poornima
-
16-Feb-2026
Cma - Cases
Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan , Honourable Ms.Justice R. Poornima
-
29-Jan-2026
Adjourned Cases
Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan , Honourable Ms.Justice R. Poornima
-
08-Jan-2026
Cma -- Cases
Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan , Honourable Ms.Justice R. Poornima
-
23-Jan-2025
Cma - Cases
Honourable Mr Justice G.r.swaminathan , Honourable Ms.Justice R. Poornima
-
09-Jan-2025
Cma - Cases
Honourable Mr Justice G.r.swaminathan , Honourable Ms.Justice R. Poornima
-
02-Jul-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
26-Mar-2024
Case filed
Registration No. CMA(MD)/696/2024
Summary: S. Naveen v. M. Nitharshani (CMA(MD)/696/2024) Court: Madurai Bench, Madras High Court Date: June 15, 2026 Decision The High Court dismissed the husband's appeals for divorce and upheld the wife's decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The court found the husband's allegations of schizophrenia against the wife entirely unsubstantiated by medical evidence. Key Findings On Mental Illness Allegations: - No credible medical evidence established the wife suffered from schizophrenia or any incurable mental disorder - Medical records were only photocopies of prescriptions lacking diagnostic reports - The alleged mental illness emerged only after pregnancy confirmation; the couple lived harmoniously for 8 months prior - The court found the schizophrenia allegations to be a calculated fabrication designed to facilitate divorce On Cruelty: The husband failed to plead or prove any specific abnormal conduct by the wife constituting cruelty. The mere unsubstantiated allegation of mental illness, without supporting evidence or demonstrated behavioral impact, cannot ground divorce. On Separation Arguments: The court rejected that six years of separation alone constitutes mental cruelty, particularly where the separation resulted from the husband's unilateral withdrawal based on unfounded apprehensions. A spouse cannot create the breakdown and then exploit it as grounds for divorce. Outcome - Divorce petition: Dismissed - Restitution of conjugal rights: Confirmed in wife's favor - Jewellery: 40 sovereigns to be returned (confirmed) - Mangalsutra: Direction to return set aside as inconsistent with restitution decree This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts