A spouse who sought dissolution cannot challenge the divorce decree over unresolved ancillary claims.

The appellant-wife challenged the judgment of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, in O.P. No. 1659 of 2023, by which her marriage with the respondent-husband was dissolved on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

The parties were married according to Christian rites and had one child.

The husband alleged matrimonial discord, the wife’s failure to perform household responsibilities, disputes involving his family, and her eventual withdrawal from the matrimonial relationship.

The wife denied the allegations and made counter-allegations of cruelty and brutal conduct against the husband.

In her counter, she sought legal separation/dissolution of the marriage and also sought the return of jewellery, sreethanam articles, household articles, and ₹9,60,000 allegedly transferred to the husband.

The Family Court granted a decree of divorce but did not adjudicate the wife’s claims for return of property and money.

The wife thereafter preferred the present appeal.

Whether the appellant-wife could successfully challenge the decree of divorce when she had herself sought dissolution of the marriage in her counter before the Family Court?

Whether the appellant’s grievance that the Family Court failed to decide her claims for return of jewellery, sreethanam articles, household articles, and ₹9,60,000 justified interference with the decree of divorce in the present appeal?

The appeal was considered under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which provides the appellate framework for challenging a decree of a Family Court in matrimonial proceedings.

The Court applied the principle that a party who has expressly sought dissolution of marriage before the trial court cannot subsequently challenge the dissolution granted in accordance with that request, particularly where the appeal is effectively founded on grievances concerning separate monetary or property claims.

The Court noted that the wife’s own counter specifically prayed for dissolution of the marriage and for legal separation.

Since the Family Court granted the very matrimonial relief that she had sought, the High Court held that she could not “turn around” and challenge the dissolution merely because the Family Court had not addressed her claims for return of jewellery, sreethanam articles, household articles, and money.

The Court treated those claims as distinct grievances that did not undermine the validity of the divorce decree.

On that basis, and considering the appellant’s prior position before the Family Court, the Court found no merit in the appeal.

Her unresolved claims relating to jewellery, sreethanam articles, household articles, and ₹9,60,000 did not warrant setting aside the decree of divorce in the present appeal.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.