Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3919 (MAD)

G. Sekar v. S. Jayanthi

2013-11-14

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, R.SUDHAKAR

body2013
Judgment : Mrs. Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 10.8.2009 made in O.P.No.1335 of 2003, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. 2. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is his wife. The appellant-husband had filed the Petition under Section 13[1][i-a] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 3.9.1998 in Chennai. In the Original Petition filed by the appellant, he has stated that after marriage, a female child was born to them on 27.8.1999 and the respondent-wife returned to the matrimonial home only after 15 months. It is alleged that there had been frequent quarrels between the appellant and the respondent immediately after their marriage. While so, a second female child was also born to them on 24.5.2002. The respondent-wife used to threaten the appellant saying that she would give complaint on the ground of dowry harassment. On 26.8.2002, the respondent went to her parents house taking her jewels and other articles. During July 2003, a complaint had been lodged before the H-4 Police Station on the ground of theft of jewellery and from that day, the appellant and the respondent seem to be staying away from each other. The appellant had alleged cruelty, mental agony and torture by his wife and that the respondent-wife has been ill-treating him. The mental torture was so intolerable and therefore he seeks to stay away from his wife. 3. In the counter filed by the respondent-wife, she has denied all the allegations that she caused cruelty to the appellant. However, she has expressed her willingness to join the appellant for the sake of her two female children, despite knowing that the appellant was suffering from mental depression and was taking treatment. 4. Having gone through the pleadings of the parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the court below found that no substantial evidence, either oral or documentary, was let in by the appellant-husband to substantiate the ground on which he has sought for divorce and it ultimately dismissed the Petition. 5. 4. Having gone through the pleadings of the parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the court below found that no substantial evidence, either oral or documentary, was let in by the appellant-husband to substantiate the ground on which he has sought for divorce and it ultimately dismissed the Petition. 5. Considering the entire materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel on either side, we understand that the allegations made by the appellant-husband as against the respondent-wife are invented only for the purpose of the case and therefore, this Court feels that there is no truth in the allegations made by him. Any cruelty that may be alleged in matrimonial life between the parties may be of unfounded variety. It may be words, gestures, or by mere silence, violent or non-violent. The petty quibbles and trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy the matrimonial ties. All quarrels and differences must be weighed from the point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case which also depends upon the social status and financial conditions of the parties. Mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of a particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status and environment in which they live. 6. It is well settled principle that to constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be so grave to come to the conclusion that the complaining spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It should be more serious than ordinary wear and tear of married life. The conduct of the wife taking into consideration the circumstances and back ground has to be examined to arrive at a conclusion whether the same amount to cruelty. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life may not amount to cruelty. The allegations made by the appellant in his petition for divorce in paragraph Nos.3 to 6 are the ones falling under the category stated above and they are also not substantiated by evidence. The court below has passed a well merited and considered order and it requires no interference. The allegations made by the appellant in his petition for divorce in paragraph Nos.3 to 6 are the ones falling under the category stated above and they are also not substantiated by evidence. The court below has passed a well merited and considered order and it requires no interference. In the interest of justice, this Court feels that the appellant-husband and respondent-wife should join the matrimonial home as the allegations, based on which the husband has filed the petition for divorce, are not proved. 7. In the result, the order and the decree passed by the court below are confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.