Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1028 (MAD)

P. Shanmugam v. P. Karpagam

2007-03-22

CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, P.D.DINAKARAN

body2007
Judgment :- Chitra Venkataraman, J. This appeal is by the petitioner/husband against the wife/respondent herein, challenging the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 20.8.2003 in H.M.O.P.No.91 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. 2. It is stated that the appellant and the respondent herein were married as per the Hindu rites on 25. 1998. The appellant alleged that he belonged to an agricultural family. The inequality in their status of living spoiled their marital peace and that the respondent lived away from the appellant herein. The appellant stated that he was under the fond hope that the respondent would mend her ways to live with him amicably. He alleged that considering the attitude of the respondent herein, their marital relationship was very depressive. He further alleged that the respondent aborted the child stating that she did not want to have a child through an uneducated husband. He further stated that he is the only son of his widowed mother and that the respondent insisted on setting up a separate home for themselves. When the appellant refused to this, the respondent started abusing the appellant. He stated that there was an attempt on the life of his mother and the respondent picked up a quarrel on 111. 1998 only to attack him. Considering the mental and physical harassment, an application was made for divorce. .3. The petition was resisted by the respondent stating that the said petition was made within one year of the marriage. Hence, as per Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the said petition was not maintainable. She denied his allegation on the mental and physical harassment meted out. She also denied the allegation that she went in for an abortion. She stated that she respected her mother-in-law as her own mother and denied the allegation on the attempt of life of his mother or on the appellant. She stated that on 30.7.1999, she delivered a girl child, and neither the appellant nor his parents came to see the child. When she visited the appellant along with the child, they made a demand of dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. The efforts taken by the respondent through her relatives for a reconciliation failed. Hence, she lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Tiruppur. The appellant was arrested and was let out on bail. When she visited the appellant along with the child, they made a demand of dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. The efforts taken by the respondent through her relatives for a reconciliation failed. Hence, she lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Tiruppur. The appellant was arrested and was let out on bail. She alleged that the appellant had remarried one Sathyabama; in the circumstances, she prayed that the petition be dismissed. 4. The Court below went into the evidence of the appellant herein and found that on admission, he had married one Sathyabama and has a girl child through her. It is also seen through Ex.A4 that the appellant and his mother were convicted for an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court below found that no independent witness was examined, nor the appellant had proved the allegation of ill-treatment by the respondent on the appellant and his mother. The Court below, however, noted that the appellant had admitted that he had pledged the respondents jewels and that the allegation on dowry harassment was clearly proved. In these circumstances, the Court below rejected the petition and held that the petitioner/appellant was not entitled to any relief of divorce. Aggrieved by the said finding, the petitioner husband has preferred this appeal, contending that the wife never wanted to live with him. He also submitted that the respondent attempted on the life of his mother and openly attacked the appellant. He also questioned the correctness of the order of the Court in placing reliance on the decision of the criminal Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, reiterating the grounds raised in the appeal, submitted that considering the harassment meted out to the appellant herein and the long separation, the case merited to be allowed. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation of dowry harassment in the form of a criminal complaint was given in February, 2001 only to cover her behaviour. In the circumstances, learned counsel prayed that the appeal be allowed. 6. Heard the counsel for both sides. .7. A perusal of the evidence, as considered by the Court below, show that the petitioner/appellant had failed to let in any evidence to substantiate the allegation of mental and physical harassment at the hands of the respondent. In the circumstances, learned counsel prayed that the appeal be allowed. 6. Heard the counsel for both sides. .7. A perusal of the evidence, as considered by the Court below, show that the petitioner/appellant had failed to let in any evidence to substantiate the allegation of mental and physical harassment at the hands of the respondent. On the other hand, the evidence filed by the respondent clearly showed that the case was one of dowry harassment and that the appellant was punished in the criminal proceedings. The appellant had also admitted in his evidence that he had contracted a second marriage and has a child through the second marriage. Hence, going by the evidence against the appellant herein and having regard to the fact that there was absolutely no material to substantiate the allegation of cruelty at the hands of the respondent, the Court below rightly rejected the petition for divorce. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 8. A perusal of the records show that this Court directed the parties herein to go for a mediation to reconcile their differences. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre. However, the efforts failed and the matter was referred back to this Court for a decision on merits. Considering the admission made by the appellant herein about his contracting the second marriage when the first marriage itself subsisted and that he has a child through the first marriage with the respondent herein, interest of justice requires that a charge be created in the property to safeguard the interest of the respondent and the minor child. With the above observation, this appeal is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.