Madras High Court· 24 July 2026

Whether in the absence of a challenge to the decree passed for restitution of conjugal rights and when an appeal is filed only against the dismissal of the divorce petition, the appeal is maintainable?

N.Karthik v. J.Pushpalatha

SA. No.15 of 2025 · SA. No.15 of 2025
Coram: Justice P.B.Balaji

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. Where the restitution of conjugal rights petition and the divorce petition are jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment, the aggrieved party must file two independent appeals; not having challenged the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, that decree attains finality and operates as res judicata against pursuing the challenge to dismissal of the divorce petition, rendering the appeal not maintainable.

Headnote

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s.9 — s.13 — Restitution of conjugal rights — Divorce — Joint trial — Res judicata — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s.9 — s.13 — Joint trial of divorce and restitution petitions — Effect of not appealing the restitution decree — Held: Where a divorce petition and a restitution of conjugal rights petition between the same spouses are jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment, the aggrieved party must file two independent appeals, one against each decree; failure to challenge the restitution decree separately is fatal to the appeal against dismissal of the divorce petition. (¶9, 11) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Res judicata — Finality of unchallenged decree — Held further: An unchallenged decree for restitution of conjugal rights attains finality and operates as res judicata against the petitioner pursuing a challenge to the dismissal of his divorce petition arising from the same common judgment. (¶11) Civil Procedure — Second appeal — Maintainability — Perversity plea insufficient — Held further: A plea that the Court below rendered perverse findings on the divorce petition does not cure the non-maintainability of the appeal where the connected restitution decree, passed by the same common judgment, remains unchallenged. The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, without costs. (¶12, 13)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 11Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.T.S.Baskaran, that if the petitioner succeeds on the ground of perversity in the appreciation of the pleadings and evidence by the Court below, then mere fact that the husband has not challenged the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, will not come in the way of the petitioner, entitling him to dissolution of the marriage. I am unable to countenance the said argument of the learned counsel Mr.T.S.Baskaran. When the OP for restitution of conjugal rights was jointly tried along with the OP for dissolution of marriage and a common order came to be passed, if aggrieved, the petitioner ought to have filed two independent appeals, one challenging the dismissal of the divorce petition and another challenging the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Having not chosen to challenge the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the decree has attained finality and it would clearly operate as res judicata against the petitioner from pursuing his challenge against the dismissal of his divorce petition.

Acts & Sections

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of N.Karthik v. J.Pushpalatha — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Does an unchallenged restitution of conjugal rights decree bar a later challenge to the connected divorce dismissal decided by the same common judgment?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections