Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1019 (MAD)

B. v. Amreshkumar VS B. A. Sumathi

2007-03-22

CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, P.D.DINAKARAN

body2007
Judgment :- Chitra Venkataraman, J. This appeal is by the petitioner against the order of the I Additional Family Court , Chennai, rejecting the petition filed by the husband against the respondent-wife for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion, under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. It is stated that the appellant herein got married to the respondent on 18. 1994 according to the Hindu rites and customs. The allegation of the appellant herein is that the respondent was a quarrelsome, disobedient person, apart from being unchaste in her character. He stated that the respondent used to leave the matrimonial home without the knowledge of the appellant. He alleged that she had illicit intimacy with her previous employer. He had stated that the respondent confessed her relationship. She left her matrimonial house on 13. 1995, but she made a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Kothaval Bazaar, Chennai, filed in C.C.No.3321/95. He stated that there is no chance of re-union and hence, sought for a decree of divorce. 3. The said petition was resisted by the respondent by denying the allegations contained therein. She stated that there was no illicit relationship with her previous employer, as alleged by the appellant/petitioner. She further alleged that as she was well employed, the appellant had always suffered from a complex and was extremely suspicious in nature. The attitude of the petitioner/appellant herein caused agony to the respondent. The ill-treatment at the hands of the appellant forced her to give a complaint before the All Women Police Station. She alleged that the appellant never treated her as his wife and fearing for her life, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home. Hence, the allegation that she left the matrimonial home without his knowledge was totally incorrect. She denied the allegation that she asked the appellant to reside in her parental house. She stated that they lived together till she delivered a child on 9. 1995. Hence, the allegation that she left the matrimonial house on 13. 1995 was not correct. .4. The appellant examined himself as P.W.1. Apart from the appellant, two others were also examined. On the side of the respondent, apart from the respondent as R.W.1, one Gnaneswara Rao was also examined. 1995. Hence, the allegation that she left the matrimonial house on 13. 1995 was not correct. .4. The appellant examined himself as P.W.1. Apart from the appellant, two others were also examined. On the side of the respondent, apart from the respondent as R.W.1, one Gnaneswara Rao was also examined. The Court below considered the evidence of the parties herein and pointed out that the appellant himself had disproved his allegations by the letters written to the respondent and her father. These letters were marked as Exs.R1 and R2 dated 4. 1995 and 24. 1995 respectively. Going by the letters, the Court below found that the allegation that the respondent picked up a quarrel to leave the matrimonial home on 13. 1995 was not sustainable as true and correct. Quoting from Exs.R1 and R2, the Court below held that it was evident and apparent that the appellant had written these letters with full affection and that there was no mention anywhere in these letters that the respondent had abandoned the matrimonial home. On the question of ill-treatment by the wife as alleged by the appellant, the Court below found that that there were absolutely no pleadings to that effect, apart from lacking in evidence. P.W.2 and P.W.3 were none other than the brothers of the appellant. Considering the inconsistency in the evidence of the appellant and the witnesses, the Court below held that the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 could not be given any credence. On the question of the alleged intimacy of the respondent with her previous employer, it was noted that there was no evidence at all to substantiate such a plea. Further, the Court below commented about the attitude of the appellant as to why there was no mention at all regarding the birth of a child. On the question of the complaint given by the respondent against the appellant and his family members and that the complaint was rejected by the Criminal Court, the Court below held that the copy of the judgment was not submitted to the Court in support of the allegation made by the appellant that the respondent had given a false complaint. Taking an overall view of the circumstances and the evidence let in, the Court below came to the conclusion that the appellant had not established his case of cruelty and desertion and thus rejected the plea made in the petition. Taking an overall view of the circumstances and the evidence let in, the Court below came to the conclusion that the appellant had not established his case of cruelty and desertion and thus rejected the plea made in the petition. 5. Aggrieved of this, the petitioner has filed this appeal. The appellant submitted that the Court below failed to consider the evidence of the appellant on the question of harassment and her illicit intimacy with her previous employer; that considering the desertion by the wife-respondent, the Court below ought to have come to the conclusion that the appellant had proved his case, to grant the relief. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was no chance of re-union between the parties and that the Court below totally erred in ignoring the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. Considering the probabilities of this case and the conduct of the respondent, he prayed for allowing the appeal and to grant the relief. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, disputed the claim of the appellant herein and submitted that there are no merits in the claim of the appellant herein and prayed for dismissal of the petition. .8. A perusal of the evidence given by the appellant herein showed that the respondent had resigned her job after the marriage. Later on, she joined the same concern. He also denied the suggestion that his parents ill-treated the respondent herein. To the allegation of harassment by the wife, in the cross-examination of the respondent, she totally denied such allegation. On the other hand, she projected that she had a cordial family life with her husband. She also stated that since she was well educated, a postgraduate in her qualification, the appellant always had a sense of inferiority complex, apart from doubting the respondents character. She also referred to the several instances when she was sent out of the matrimonial home, demanding dowry. She referred to the normal relationship between the couple in February, 1995 and that he was with her during her delivery. The veracity of this is supported by the letters written by the husband/appellant herein, which are evidenced by Exs.R1 and R2. The appellant herein could not deny the contents of the letters written. She referred to the normal relationship between the couple in February, 1995 and that he was with her during her delivery. The veracity of this is supported by the letters written by the husband/appellant herein, which are evidenced by Exs.R1 and R2. The appellant herein could not deny the contents of the letters written. Hence, going by this and the absolute lack of evidence as regards the allegation on desertion, the Court below rejected the plea of the appellant herein. Apart from this, the Court below also held that there is no iota of evidence to substantiate the plea that he suffered cruelty at the hands of the wife. In the absence of any contra evidence, rightly, the Court below rejected the plea of the appellant herein. 9. On going through the evidence and the order, we do not find any ground to disagree with the findings of the Court below. In the circumstances, we confirm the order of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court and reject the appeal. There will, however, be no order as to costs.