VIKAS JAIN vs SNEHA JAIN
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
CMA No. 68 of 2024
and
CMA No.114 of 2024
and
CMA No.2609 of 2025
and
CMP No.1015 of 2024
CMA No.68 of 2024:
Vikas Jain
..Appellant
Vs.
Sneha Jain
..Respondent
CMA No.114 of 2024:
Vikas Jain ..Appellant
Vs.
Sneha Jain ..Respondent
CMA No.2609 of 2025:
Sneha Jain ..Appellant
Vs.
Vikas Jain ..Respondent
Prayer in CMA No.68 of 2024: This Appeal filed under Section 19(i) of Family
Court Act, 1955 to set aside the common order and decree dated 20.09.2023 in
O.P.No.1472 of 2018 on the file of the VI Additional Principal Family Court,
Chennai.
__________
Page1 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
Prayer in CMA No.114 of 2024: This Appeal filed under Section 19(i) of
Family Court Act, 1955 to set aside the common order and decree dated
20.09.2023 in O.P.No.4009 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional Principal
Family Court, Chennai.
Prayer in CMA No.2609 of 2025: This Appeal filed under Section 19(i) of
Family Court Act, 1955 to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.3826 of 2018 in
O.P.No.4009 of 2017 passed by the learned VI Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Chennai, through a common order dated 20.09.2023.
For Appellant(s): Mr.M.Arvind Kumar
in CMA.Nos.68 and 114 of 2024
Mr.Sanjay Pinto
in CMA No.2609 of 2025
For Respondent(s): Mr.Sanjay Pinto
in CMA.Nos.68 and 114 of 2024
Mr.M.Arvind Kumar
in CMA No.2609 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)
All the three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise from a common order
dated 20.09.2023 passed by the VI Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai
in O.P.No.1472 of 2018, O.P.No.4009 of 2017 and I.A.No.3826 of 2018 in
O.P.No.4009 of 2017.
__________
Page2 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
2.C.M.A.No.68 of 2024 had been filed to set aside the decree dated
20.09.2023 in O.P.No.1472 of 2018. O.P.No.1472 of 2018 had been filed by the
appellant, Vikas Jain, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition
had been dismissed, necessitating filing of the appeal in C.M.A.No.68 of 2024.
3.C.M.A.No.114 of 2024 had been filed to set aside the decree dated
20.09.2023 in O.P.No.4009 of 2017. O.P.No.4009 of 2017 had been filed by the
respondent Sneha Jain, seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnized on
17.12.2014. The dissolution of marriage was sought under Section 13(1)(i-a) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty. The said petition had
been allowed, necessitating filing of the appeal in C.M.A.No.114 of 2024.
4.C.M.A.No.2609 of 2025 had been filed to set aside the order dated
20.09.2023 in I.A.No.3826 of 2018 in O.P.No.4009 of 2017. I.A.No.3826 of
2018 had been filed by Sneha Jain, seeking a direction against Vikas Jain, to
return the articles as specified in the petition. The said application had been
dismissed, necessitating filing of the appeal in C.M.A.No.2609 of 2025.
O.P.No.4009 of 2017:
5.In the petition filed, the petitioner, Sneha Jain had stated that her
marriage with the respondent therein Vikas Jain had been solemnized on
07.12.2014 at Chennai, and they commenced their matrimonial life in the
__________
Page3 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
residence of the respondent which was a joint family and included the parents of
the respondent and also his sister. She contended that right from the first day of
the marriage, she faced several problems from the respondent and from his
family members. It was contended that prior to the marriage the respondent held
out that he was drawing a salary of about Rs.75,000/- apart from other benefits
and was also doing part-time business with his father and drawing an additional
income of about Rs.75,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per month. He also stated that he
likes travelling. He further stated that neither he nor his family members were
interested in seeking dowry. It had been contended that however contrary to
these statements made prior to the marriage, she found that he was not
profitably employed and was not doing part-time business with his father and
that more importantly both he and his family members were extremely
interested in seeking dowry. This attitude of the respondent had put her off from
the beginning days of the marriage. She also stated that the sister of the
respondent played a dominant role in his life and was always present in all
discussions. She further stated that she discovered that her mother-in-law had
the strange habit of shop lifting. She was distressed by such act which she had
seen directly. She further stated that though she protested about this particular
habit of the mother-in-law, the respondent did not take care to address the same.
6.She further stated that at the time of marriage several gold and silver
jewellery items apart from other articles had been given to her. Her parents had
__________
Page4 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
also given a cupboard. It was contended that she had kept the articles in the
cupboard, but however, the keys were taken by the respondent and his family
members and on several occasions, she found that several of the articles were
missing. It was also stated that there was also an issue about bearing the
expenses to be incurred while going for honeymoon. All these issues seriously
affected her mental health.
7.She further stated that immediately after entering into the marital
house, her mother-in-law told her that she must surrender all her jewels and
sreedhana items and that they should be under her mother-in-law’s control. The
petitioner had not raised any protest at that time. She also stated that no special
treatment was extended even though she had entered the house as a newly wed
daughter-in-law. This attitude of neglect had impacted her mental health. She
was also not permitted to take food along with the other family members and
was instructed that she could take food only after everybody else had taken their
food.
8.In the petition, she had further stated that though she was permitted to
cook food, she found that on several occasions her mother-in-law and sister-in-
law added other spices additionally to the food preparations and the quality of
the food was thereafter commented upon by the other family members. She also
narrated one specific instance when several visitors had come to the house and
__________
Page5 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
she was directed to cook food for all of them and after she had completed the
cooking, additional salt and other spices were added to the preparations to make
the preparations unpalatable. She stated that she was subjected to humiliation
owing to these nefarious acts committed by her mother-in-law and her sister-in-
law. Her grievance was that the respondent did not support her when she raised
these issues. She further stated that her father-in-law kept a personal watch over
all her activities, which again put her to embarrassment.
9.Thereafter, she became pregnant. Even then the acts of cruelty
continued. She was sent to her mother’s house, but however, nobody took care
to even enquire about her health or to come forward to meet the expenses. She
further stated that the respondent and his family members teased her with
respect to her appearance, which amounted to body shaming. The photographs
of other women were also shown to her and it was commented that she was in
poor state when compared with others.
10.She further stated that after the child was born, the respondent did not
visit her. It was contended that prior and after the birth of the child, no
ceremonies or functions were celebrated welcoming the new child into the
family. A boy child was born to her. When she had taken the baby in her arms
to the house, she was shocked when the respondent questioned whether the
baby was his baby and also went to the extent of asking her to undertake a DNA
__________
Page6 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
test for the baby. This behaviour and attitude of the respondent had very
seriously affected her. Contending that all these acts amounted to continuous
mental cruelty without any letup, she had presented the petition seeking divorce
on the ground of cruelty.
11.The respondent, Vikas Jain filed a counter affidavit, in which, he
denied the allegations. But however, it must be pointed out that a careful
reading of the counter affidavit did not reveal that there was specific denial of
the specific allegations raised by the petitioner. He stated that he had never
informed the petitioner that he was drawing salary of Rs.75,000/-, never stated
that he would be able to earn an additional income of Rs.75,000/- to
Rs.1,00,000/- by participating in the business of his father. He further stated that
he was employed in a private company and earning Rs.18,000/- from his full-
time job. He stated that he had showered good love and affection on the
petitioner, but it was the petitioner who created problems with unjust demands.
The allegations raised by the petitioner were denied and it was stated that they
had been stated only to defame his mother.
12.With respect to the honeymoon, he gave his own version and stated
that it was the petitioner who did not come forward to make it a happy event.
With respect to the jewels and other articles demanded by the mother-in-law to
be kept in safe custody, he stated that they were always in the possession of the
__________
Page7 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
petitioner. The allegations against his sister was also denied. He also denied all
other allegations raised by her, though not specifically. With respect to the birth
of the child, he stated that he and his parents were excited at the information
that the petitioner had became pregnant. The other allegations stated by her
were all denied. He, however, claimed that he was not informed about the birth
of the child and he came to know about the same only through a distant relative.
He stated that he immediately rushed to the hospital to see his child and the
petitioner. But her family members picked up quarrels. He further stated that
there was no discussion at all about conducting any function to welcome the
child and it is for that reason that such function were not conducted. He stated
that there was no demand of jewellery or money. He, however, stated that he
had lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police station on 12.06.2016.
He further stated that thereafter in January 2018, the petitioner had given a
complaint against him. He denied all other allegations raised and contended that
the petition seeking dissolution of marriage should be dismissed.
O.P.No.1472 of 2018:
13.This petition has been filed by Vikas Jain, the husband, seeking
restitution of conjugal rights. As is evident, from the year on which the petition
had been filed, it was filed only after the petition seeking dissolution of
marriage had been filed. It is to be pointed out that this petition seeking
restitution of conjugal rights had been presented on 05.04.2018. Any petition
__________
Page8 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
seeking restitution of conjugal rights is presented only to bring about
reconciliation among the parties, stating that the petitioner is ready and willing
to lead a normal matrimonial life with the respondent therein.
14.The counter affidavit in O.P.No.4009 of 2017 was dated 25.05.2018
after the petition filed seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In the counter
affidavit, a reconciliatory stand was not taken. But however, every statement
made by the petitioner in O.P.No.4009 of 2017 was questioned and counter
allegations were also raised. It was therefore impossible for the Court to
adjudicate the bonafide of the petitioner in O.P.No.1472 of 2018. At any rate,
the pleadings in the petition were practically the same and therefore, we are not
examining the same in detail.
I.A.No.3826 of 2018 in O.P.No.4009 of 2017:
15.This petition, filed by Sneha Jain was dated June 2018 and was filed
after the counter affidavit was filed in O.P.No.4009 of 2017. In the affidavit
filed, it had been contended that the petitioner was unemployed and not earning
anything and was a home-maker. It was contended that at the time of marriage,
she was given gifts and valuables as sreedhana. The list of articles had been
stated in the annexure to the petition. It had also been stated that she had been
compelled to leave the matrimonial home and was not permitted to take back
her belongings. It had been stated that a direction should be issued by the Court
__________
Page9 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
to the respondent to hand over the items and cash mentioned in the annexure. A
detailed list of gold articles given to the petitioner, gold articles given to the
respondent and his family members, cash given to the respondent, silver
articles, electronics items, steel items and other miscellaneous items similarly
given to the respondent had been listed.
16.A counter affidavit had been filed by the respondent stating that the
petitioner had left the matrimonial home at the instigation of her mother and
while leaving the matrimonial home, the jewels and other articles which were
always in her possession had been taken by her. He stated that he does not have
the jewels or valuables referred in the annexure to the petition. He further stated
that the details given in the annexure are not correct and actually exaggerated.
He therefore disputed that he could be held responsible and directed to return
the articles.
G.W.O.P.No.2136 of 2018:
17.This petition had been filed by the husband, Vikas Jain under Section
7 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, seeking to appoint him as
guardian of the minor child Rishab Jain and for permanent custody of the child.
The Trial Court had dismissed the said petition. The petitioner therein had not
filed any appeal before this Court challenging the reasons given for the
dismissal. It is to be noted that the custody of the child is now with the
mother/Sneha Jain.
__________
Page10 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
The Trial:
18.On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court conducted joint
trial of all the proceedings and framed necessary points for consideration. The
parties were invited to tender evidence. Accordingly, the wife/Sneha Jain grazed
the witness box as PW-1. She marked Exs.P1 to P5. This included the Marriage
Invitation / Photographs and Marriage Certificate as Exs.P1 to P3. The Birth
Certificate of the child as Ex.P4. The respondent tendered evidence as RW-1.
He did not mark any documents.
The Observations and Findings of the Trial Court:
19.The Trial Court observed that the petitioner in her proof affidavit had
contended that the respondent and his family members had held out that a better
match could have been obtained for the respondent and that they had committed
a grave mistake in accepting the petitioner as the daughter-in-law in the family.
It was noted that photographs of other girls were shown to the petitioner, who
were said to have been prepared to marry the respondent with more dowry than
what the petitioner had brought. It was specifically held that this statement by
the petitioner had not been denied or disputed by the respondent. The Trial
Court held that this conduct of the respondent and his family members belittled
the worth of the petitioner. This was held to be one of the acts of cruelty.
__________
Page11 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
20.It was further observed by the Trial Court that the petitioner had
averred in her proof affidavit that she was not permitted to sit in the drawing
room when the respondent and his family members were there and she had
been excluded and isolated. She had also stated that she could have her food
only after other members of the family had their food. Again, it was noted by
the Trial Court that these statements were not challenged during the course of
cross examination. It was thus held that some restriction had actually been
imposed on the petitioner under the guise of tradition. It was stated that this
behaviour on the part of the respondent and his family members would have had
a severe psychological effect leading to helplessness and humiliation and must
have caused mental cruelty.
21.The Trial Court further noted the specific statement and assertion by
the petitioner that the respondent had gone to the extent of telling her to undergo
DNA test of the newly born child. This statement had again not been either
specifically denied nor put in cross examination of the petitioner. The Trial
Court was of the opinion that this particular allegation raised against the
petitioner would have definitely caused severe mental agony to the petitioner
herein and it was held that this conduct of the respondent was a specific act
which would come under the definition of mental cruelty. It was also noted that
the respondent had not presented any gift to the newly born child.
__________
Page12 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
22.With respect to the petition seeking guardianship, it had been noted
that the contention of the respondent was that the petitioner had left the marital
house along with the child, but that he had delayed filing the petition seeking
custody and guardianship till the petitioner had filed the petition seeking
dissolution of marriage.
23.Holding all these circumstances against the respondent, the Trial Court
held that the petitioner was entitled to seek dissolution of marriage. With
respect to the petition filed seeking custody of the child against which there is
no appeal presented, the Trial Court granted custody to the petitioner and
granted visitation rights to the respondent.
24.We had not been informed whether the respondent had exercised such
rights granted to him to visit his child.
25.Thereafter, the Trial Court took up I.A.No.3826 of 2018 for
consideration. This application had been filed by the petitioner seeking return
of the articles mentioned in the annexure to the petition. It had been noted that
sreedhana remained the exclusive property of the petitioner and cannot be
termed as a joint family property. None of the family members of the
respondent could claim ownership or possession of such articles.
__________
Page13 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
26.It had been however observed that the petitioner had admitted in her
cross examination that the jewels were never entrusted to her mother-in-law.
She had also stated that they were kept only for safe custody with the mother-in-
law during the initial days of the marriage. It was therefore held that the jewels
were always under the custody of the petitioner herein. It was held that since the
articles were in the custody of the petitioner, an order cannot be issued for
return of the articles. The Trial Court therefore dismissed the said petition.
The Appeals:
27.Challenging these orders, both the parties had come on appeal.
28.We would continue the narration by terming the wife as the petitioner
and the husband as the respondent.
The Arguments:
29.It is the contention of Mr.Sanjay Pinto the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner / wife had entered into the marital home with
hopeful expectations. However, very soon afterwards, she found that the
statements held out prior to the marriage about the monthly income of the
respondent was not correct, that he was not actually earning any amount, as
stated by him, that he was not earning any amount from the business of his
__________
Page14 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
father and that he was only earning a partly sum working in a private company.
The learned counsel contended that the petitioner suffered mental cruelty at
each and every stage. He contended that the Trial Court had analyzed the
evidence in entirety, particularly with respect to the seclusion of the petitioner
in the marital house from the companionship of the respondent or his family
members. The instances narrated were also pointed out. The respondent had not
challenged or questioned the allegations raised by the petitioner in the counter
affidavit or during cross examination. The learned counsel asserted that the
Trial Court had correctly assessed the pleadings and the evidence on record to
come to a just conclusion that the marriage should be dissolved under the
ground of cruelty.
30.With respect to dismissal of I.A.No.3826 of 2018, Mr.Sanjay Pinto
contended that a stray statement in the cross examination had been taken out of
context and noted by the Trial Court to dismiss the said application.
31.The learned counsel argued that the fact that the list of articles given in
the annexure to the petition had been given to the respondent had not been
specifically denied or disputed except for the bald statement that those articles
were not available. He argued that the petitioner had very specifically stated that
immediately after entering the marital house, she was compelled to handover all
the jewels and other articles to the custody of the mother-in-law. She did not
__________
Page15 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
have the benefit of getting them back again. Moreover, not only were jewels
and articles given, but a cupboard was also provided. This was also admitted by
the respondent. An empty cupboard would not be normally given. The learned
counsel contended that the cupboard was given only for safe keeping of the
jewels and other items. He also pointed out the wedding photograph produced
and marked as a document to show that the petitioner was decked with jewels at
the time of marriage. He further pointed out that the father of the respondent
was earlier running a pawn shop and is now running a jewellery shop and
imputed that the stocks in the jewellery shop were the jewels given as sreedhana
to the petitioner herein. The learned counsel finally urged that the Trial Court
had misdirected itself in rejecting the application and insisted that this Court
should interfere with that order.
32.The learned counsel contended that, in the instant case, several
instances had been mentioned in the petition which were neither challenged
during cross examination nor denied in the counter affidavit and it was
therefore, contended that the Trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence
and granted dissolution of marriage.
33.Mr.M.Arvind Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent/husband,
however, denied and disputed the said contentions. He pointed out the
__________
Page16 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
allegations raised and stated that they were mere scratches in the marriage and
should not be considered as grounds affecting the marital life. He stated that
they were only allegations raised in the petition and they remained allegations
without being sufficiently proved in manner known to law. However, the
learned counsel stated that the respondent had not produced any documents on
his side to buttress his contentions. It was contended by the learned counsel that
the allegations stated in the petition are flimsy and imaginary and should be
rejected. He contended that the Trial Court had picked a few instances to grant
dissolution of marriage and stated that this Court should examine the evidence
in its entirety and dismiss the petition seeking dissolution of marriage, allow the
appeal filed by the respondent.
34.With respect to the dismissal of the petition seeking restitution of
conjugal rights, the learned counsel contended that the respondent was always
ready and willing to live with the petitioner and continue with the marital
relationship. He denied all contentions raised about questioning the paternity of
the child.
35.With respect to the petition seeking return of the articles, he
contended that the Trial Court had correctly applied its mind to the facts and
circumstances and had come to a correct conclusion to reject the said
application. He contended that the said order did not warrant any interference.
__________
Page17 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
Precedents cited:
36.Mr.M.Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent placed
reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.887 of
2010, A. Sugumar Vs. K.S.Chitra , wherein it was held that minor instances in
the marital life cannot be stated to be grounds to dissolve the marriage. The
observations of the Division Bench was based on the fact that no corroboratory
evidence had been adduced on behalf of the petitioner / wife. The learned
counsel contended that the evidence of the petitioner in the instant case should
also be rejected by this Court. He pointed out that reliable oral and documentary
evidence should be produced to establish grounds of cruelty.
37.On the other hand, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 609, Maya Gopinathan Vs. Anoop S.B and
Anr., had been cited by Mr.Sanjay Pinto on the failure of the respondent to
produce documentary evidence relating to the articles which had been stated by
the petitioner to have been brought by her as sreedhana articles and kept in the
house of the respondent in a separate cupboard, which was also given at the
time of marriage.
38.Mr.Sanjay Pinto placed further reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.18430 of 2019, Pradeep Bhardwaj
V. Priya, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that the institution
__________
Page18 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
of marriage is rooted in dignity. It had been held that any act which affronted
the mental health of the party should be viewed from the view point of the party
affected and the Court should understand the agony of the party who had
suffered.
Discussion and Determination:
39.We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the
material records.
40.The petitioner / wife / Sneha Jain had initially filed O.P.No.4009 of
2017 seeking dissolution of marriage solemnized between her and the
respondent / Vikas Jain / husband on 07.12.2014. The marriage was an arranged
marriage. It was the very specific case of the petitioner that at the time of
marriage substantial gold and silver articles had been given not only for her
benefit but also for the benefit of the respondent and his family members / his
parents. The list of articles had been given in the annexure to I.A.No.3826 of
2018 filed by the petitioner, which petition had been filed seeking return of
articles. The fact that these articles had been given and that a cupboard had also
been given by her parents had not been specifically denied. It is also to be noted
that the marriage photograph had been filed as document and which shows that
the petitioner was wearing jewellery. The list had been annexed at the time of
filing the petition itself.
__________
Page19 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
41.We find no reason to hold that the petitioner would come to Court
with an imaginary list of articles. Had that been so, the normal attitude of the
respondent would be to raise a strong protest denying the fact that the petitioner
had brought jewels, denying the fact that these specific jewels were ever
brought by her, denying the fact that they were kept in the house, denying the
fact that they were kept in the safe custody of the respondent or his mother and
denying the fact that a cupboard was ever given. As a matter of fact, in his
evidence, the respondent admitted that a cupboard was given. He had admitted
that the jewels were kept inside the cupboard. The only statement made by the
respondent was that when the petitioner went to her mother’s house for delivery
of the child, she had taken away all the jewels. If she had taken away all the
jewels at that point of time when the marriage relationship was on the verge of
breaking down, the normal attitude of the respondent would have been to raise a
protest at the removal of the jewels and record it as a fact.
42.On the other hand, the respondent had lodged a complaint before the
jurisdictional police station against the petitioner herein. The copy of the said
complaint had not been produced by the respondent.
43.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2013) 5 SCC 226, K.Srinivas Rao Vs.
D.A.Deepa had very specifically stated that lodging of a police complaint itself
is an act of mental cruelty. In paragraph No.29, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
__________
Page20 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
held as follows:
29. ........In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can
cause mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending vulgar and
defamatory letters or notices or filing complainants containing
indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial
proceedings making the other spouse's life miserable. This is what
has happened in this case.
(Emphasis Supplied)
44.It is to be noted that it is the respondent, Vikas Jain who had lodged
the police complaint against the petitioner, Sneha Jain. This fact itself would
have disturbed the petitioner.
45.Further, the various instances of cruelty listed by the petitioner had not
been specifically denied by the respondent. The alleged acts of cruelty could be
reduced as follows:
i).When the petitioner entered the marital home, she was not permitted to
move freely along with either the respondent or his family members.
ii).She was not permitted to sit with the respondent or his family members
and was asked to remain secluded and was excluded from the family members.
iii).She was not permitted to have food along with the respondent and his
family members and was directed to have food after they all had.
__________
Page21 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
iv).She was insulted by stating her that she not a suitable match for the
respondent and photographs of other women were shown to her, who according
to the respondent and his family members were willing to marry the respondent
with additional dowry.
v).She was also body shamed
46.These instances might seem trivial, but when viewed from the view
point of a newly married bride, we hold they would have definitely affected her
mental health. She had to suffer in isolation. She had nobody to talk in the
marital home. She was directed to remain in a secluded place. She had no one to
confide her griefs. The only companion of comparable age, probably the sister-
in-law who was also residing in the marital home was extremely hostile and
joined hands with the respondent / brother and mother and her acts further
aggravated the insults raised against the petitioner.
47.We hold that the significant acts of not permitting her to sit along with
the family members and not permitting her to eat along with the family
members day in and day after, would have caused severe mental agony to any
lady who had just entered the marital home with hopes and expectations.
48.A duty was cast on the respondent and his family members to provide
a friendly and conducive atmosphere when a young lady comes to their house
__________
Page22 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
with rights accustomed to marriage of the son of the family and welcome her
and not to exclude her from the family.
49.We hold that these are acts of cruelty, which when viewed
cumulatively had affected the mental health of the petitioner. She had no one to
go to. She had no place to go to. She had no one to express her grievance. She
had to suffer in isolation. We hold that a line must be drawn to limit the
sufferings of the petitioner.
50.The petitioner conceived. This did not bring joy to the family of the
respondent. She had to go back to her mother’s house. It is alleged by the
respondent that nobody informed him about the birth of the child. This
allegation is extremely childish. A duty was also cast on the father of a child to
continuously enquire not just about the birth of the child but also about the
health of his wife during the months of pregnancy. Nobody can give birth in
secrecy. A baby is not delivered overnight. Any birth is around about ten
months of pregnancy. The complaint made by the respondent in this regard is
rejected by us.
51. More shockingly, when the petitioner entered the marital home with
her baby in her arms, she was questioned by the respondent who the father was.
This must have shocked her to the extreme. This question directly affected her
__________
Page23 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
honour and self respect. The pride of any woman is the fact that she had borne a
heir to her husband’s family. The extreme perversity of the respondent is
evident in this attitude itself. She had very specifically stated this fact in her
petition. She had very specifically stated this fact in her evidence in chief.
52.She had further stated that she was directed to undergo DNA test of
the child. In the proof affidavit, the petitioner had stated as follows:
“16.h.I further state that the respondent even went to the
extent of telling me to go for DNA test of the newly born child.
This direct allegation had neither been specifically denied in the counter
nor challenged during cross examination.
53.The Petitioner then narrated the further ordeals suffered by her:
17.I further state that after the birth of the child the respondent
and his family members have not performed any rituals including
the rituals to take back me and the newly born child to the
matrimonial house and initially when I and my family members
were asking to fix the date for me and the newly born child to go
back to the matrimonial house the respondent and his family
members used to avoid it for some or other ground after
sometimes the respondent and his family members have started
demanding money and jewels to enable me and the newly born
__________
Page24 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
child to go back to the matrimonial house. The respondent and
his family members asked me not to come back to the
matrimonial house and if at all I wants to join the matrimonial
house the respondent and his parents said that I should bring
cash rupees Ten Lakhs and 25 sovereigns of gold for child and
all costly toys, Video games and many more items list was said by
the respondents parents, if I bring all this things along with me
then they will think over it whether the child and I can join the
matrimonial house and virtually they closed the doors for me in
the. matrimonial house and deserted me from the matrimonial
house. ”
It is thus seen that the respondent held the petitioner more as a chattel
than as a wife and young mother to be treated with dignity.
54.During cross examination no specific questions were put denying and
disputing these statements. These allegations by the respondent in conjunction
with the fact that the respondent had taken years before filing GWOP No.2136
of 2018 seeking guardianship of the child, and when guardianship had been
denied and only visitation rights had been granted, he had not challenged the
said denial of his relief before this Court would show that the respondent still
harbors animosity against the petitioner and has practically rejected the child.
The mental torture continues till this date.
__________
Page25 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
55.We hold that the respondent had committed continuous act of cruelty,
particularly in challenging the paternity of the child born to him and we find no
reason to differ with the findings of the Trial Court in this regard.
56.In her proof affidavit, she had further stated as follows:
“17. ........... Despite of all this still I had hope that after
seeing the baby everything will go fine with such hope I along
with the new born child went to the matrimonial house but my
luck that the respondent and his family members did not even
open the main door and when I requested to allow me to come
inside the house as it was very hot and the child was also
suffering but the respondents parents had no curtsey instead they
started shouting from the balcony and spoke vulgarly in a fitly
language and insulted me and strictly said that they would not
open the door, nor will they allow me and the child in the
matrimonial home as they have already seen some other girl for
the respondent. Even though I and my father requested they did
not show any mercy. ”
57.This evidence would show that scant, if not, no respect was bestowed
on the petitioner when she came to her marital house with her new born baby.
She was prevented from even entering into the house. The main door was not
even opened. The respondent and his family members shouted from the
balcony. They did not have the courtesy to come down to see the child or the
__________
Page26 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
petitioner. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner had taken away
the jewels with her is rejected by us.
58.It is also significant to note that the respondent had not let in any
positive evidence to state that he had taken steps to bring back the petitioner to
the marital house or atleast seek custody of the child or bring the child to the
marital house at the earliest point of time. The neglect of the petitioner is one
aspect. The neglect of the petitioner and her child is yet another aspect. The
neglect of the child is a third aspect. All these acts cumulatively would show
that severe mental cruelty had been inflicted on the petitioner by the
respondents.
59.We hold that the Trial Court had properly analysed the evidence while
granting dissolution of marriage and we are not inclined to interfere with the
said finding.
60.We hold that the respondent had filed petition in O.P.No.1472 of 2018
seeking restitution of conjugal rights more as a formality than with any real
intention. We hold that the Trial Court had correctly dismissed the said petition.
We hold that there is no bonafide in the appeal presented before us against that
order. Having indulged in continuous acts of cruelty, it hardly lies in the mouth
__________
Page27 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
of the respondent to seek restitution of conjugal rights. He had neglected his
wife prior to the birth of the child. He had neglected his wife subsequent to the
birth of the child. He had neglected his wife and the child also after the birth of
the child. There cannot be restitution in such circumstances. There cannot be
exercised of conjugal right under such circumstances. The petitioner has had
enough. The Court can never trust the respondent and grant restitution of
conjugal rights.
61.During his cross examination, when specific questions were put about
his conduct during the pregnancy and at the time of the birth of the child, he had
answered as follows:
“Q. Do You remember in which month of pregnancy did your wife go to
her parents house?
A. Exactly can't remember
Q. During the period of pregnancy when your wife was in her
parents house. Did you talking to her?
A. Yes
Q. The delivery of the child was whether cesarean or ordinary?
A. Normal Delivery
Q.Your wife give birth to child in hospital?
A. Yes
Q. You were informed when she was taken to hospital?
A. No
__________
Page28 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
Q. Before your wife was taken to hospital when did you speak to
her last?
A. Exactly can't remember.”
The answers are of a person who is just not interested either in his wife or
in his new born child.
62.We hold that it would be an exercise in futility and an extension of
torture if restitution of conjugal rights are granted and we therefore confirm the
dismissal of O.P.No.1472 of 2018.
63.The petitioner had filed CMA.No.2609 of 2025 questioning the order
dismissing I.A.No.3826 of 2018. The said application in I.A.No.3826 of 2018
can never be viewed in isolation or as a standalone application. It had been filed
as the culmination of a series of cruelty suffered at the hands of the respondent
by the petitioner to finally push her to seek return of the articles, only because,
according to her, the marriage had come an end. She had sought dissolution of
marriage. Naturally, she requires protection in her life. One protection which
she would expect is for the articles given by her father to be returned to her. The
Trial Court had very correctly stated that sreedhana property can never be stated
to be the property of the joint family or the family to which a lady enters on
marriage. It still remains her exclusive property. She should have autonomy to
decide how to deal with the said property, with her jewels. It is not just
__________
Page29 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
independence but autonomy to take a decision as to the holding of the jewels
and the other articles. For every lady, any small article given by her parents,
would be of immense value. It not only has the value attached to it as an article,
but has a sentimental value. It is the only reminder of her life in her parents’
house, which memories she had taken to her marital house. Once the marital
relationship suffers, naturally she would expects the articles to be given back to
her. They do not remind her of the marriage, but remind her of the love and
affection bestowed on her by her parents. She has to retain custody out of her
respect for her parents. The articles cannot be just frittered away by her to her
husband, who has rejected her, and the relatives of her husband who had
neglected her and who had even questioned the paternity of their own heir.
64 . A list of articles had been annexed to the petition. When a list is
given, in a counter affidavit, specific denial must be given with respect to each
item of the list. There cannot be a blanket denial. It would not be possible to
understand whether the denial is for Sl.No.1 or Sl.No.10 or Sl.No.20 or to all
the items in the annexure. Each item has its own value. Specifications had been
given. The assertion by the respondent that the mother-in-law had only
temporary custody would not mean that thereafter, the petitioner had exclusive
custody of the same without the respondent qualifying what he meant by
temporary custody. At the time when the petitioner entered into the marital
__________
Page30 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
house, the very fact that the mother-in-law demanded that she should be given
custody of the jewels would show that the petitioner had been deprived of the
freedom to use the jewels as and when she wanted. Once she was denied the
freedom to use the jewels it has to be held that there was restriction on her to
take the jewels away from the family or from the marital house.
65.In the counter affidavit, the respondent had stated as follows:
“ Unfortunately, the Petitioner at the instigation of her
mother had left the matrimonial home and while leaving the
matrimonial home, the jewels and other valuables which were
always in the custody of the Petitioner was taken back by her
when she had left the matrimonial home during pregnancy.
Though I had a suspicion at that time, this fact had been
confirmed and had come to my knowledge only after few months
when the Petitioner started creating troubles for not returning to
the matrimonial home As such I do not have any of the jewels or
valuables referred to in Annexure attached to the petition. ”
66. A perusal of the aforementioned extract would show that the
respondent had a suspicion that the jewels and valuables were taken back by
her and this was confirmed after few months when she started creating troubles
for not returning to the martial house. The two aspects have to be delinked. The
__________
Page31 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
first is about the mental agony suffered by the petitioner necessitating her to
leave the marital house, but according to him, at the instigation of her mother.
The second is that the petitioner left the marital house with the jewels. We hold
that the normal conduct of the respondent would have been to raise a protest
immediately or atleast put it on record that the petitioner had left the home with
the jewels. Failure to do so leads to the only conclusion that the jewels and other
articles were left behind by the petitioner. There was no possibility of her going
back with the mother without all jewels.
67. In the cross examination, however, a different stand had been taken
by the respondent:
Q.Normally when the daughter in law goes to her parents
house for pregnancy good day and good time will be seen and
only on that day and time the daughter-in-law will be sent to
parents house?
A.Yes.
Q.You were aware that on which day and what time the
petitioner go to her parents house for pregnancy?
A.Yes.
Q.Before that day, the petitioner left to the parents house
for pregnancy, you would have made all arrangements for her?
A.Yes.
__________
Page32 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
Q.When you have made all arrangements you have
supposed to know what all things she has taken with her?
A.No.”
The last answer is strange and false to the knowledge of the respondent.
68.The respondent was aware that the petitioner had gone to her parents’
house only for the delivery of the child. There was no reason to take the jewels
away. She had not vacated the marital house once and for all. The statement by
the respondent is rejected by us.
69.We again note that there was no specific denial about the correctness
of the list of articles. The petitioner was not permitted to enter the marital house
when she came back with the baby. She had gone for birth of the child. When
she came back with the new born baby, the paternity was questioned. There was
no occasion for her to take back all her jewels. The cupboard still remained in
the house of the respondent. If she wanted to take back the jewels, she would
have taken back them in the cupboard which was given to her. It is also
admitted in evidence by the respondent that the cupboard is still used by him
and his family member.
__________
Page33 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
70 . We hold that the Trial Court had misdirected itself on a stray statement
that the jewels had been temporarily handed over to the custody of the mother-
in-law and not permanently. We hold that the jewels had been retained in the
house of the respondent and there was no occasion for the petitioner to take
them away.
71.We hold under the factual circumstances that the petitioner was forced
to go out of the marital house. There was no possibility of her taking the jewels
with her. She left a frustrated lady. We hold that the jewels still remain in the
martial house. The surrounding circumstances point only to this conclusion and
to none other. We therefore set aside the order in I.A.No.3826 of 2018 in
O.P.No.4009 of 2017 and allow I.A.No.3826 of 2018 filed by the petitioner in
O.P.No.4009 of 2017.
72.In the result,
i). C.M.A.No.68 of 2024 stands dismissed confirming the dismissal order
dated 20.09.2023 of O.P.No.1472 of 2018 seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
No costs.
ii). C.M.A.No.114 of 2024 stands dismissed confirming the order in
O.P.No.4009 of 2017 dated 20.09.2023 granting dissolution of marriage
solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 07.12.2014. No costs.
__________
Page34 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
iii). CMA No.2609 of 2025 stands allowed. The order passed by the Trial
Court in I.A.No.3826 of 2018 in O.P.No.4009 of 2017 is set aside. The
respondent / Vikas Jain is directed to return back the jewels and other articles as
listed out in the annexure to I.A.No.3826 of 2018 in O.P.No.4009 of 2017
within a period of four weeks, failing which the petitioner / wife is entitled to
seek payment of the value of the jewels and the articles as on date, 19.06.2006
along with the interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the marriage,
07.12.2014 till date of payment. No costs.
73.Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(C.V.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
19-06-2026
smv
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
The VI Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.
__________
Page35 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )
2026:MHC:2431
CMA Nos. 68, 114 of 2024 & 2609 of 2025
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
smv
CMA Nos. 68 & 114 of 2024
and CMA.No.2609 of 2025
19-06-2026
__________
Page36 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 08:27:52 pm )