Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 3008 (MAD)

Sridharan v. S. Lakshmi

2017-09-04

M.M.SUNDRESH, N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. The appellant is the husband, he filed the the HMOP. No. 11 of 2003 for divorce under section 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) before the Family Court, Madurai, on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The trial Court after considering the entire material available on record was pleased to dismiss the same. Hence the present appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent was iltreating the appellant that the respondent's family was richer than the appellant. It is she who did not come back to the matrimonial home. The respondent committed cruelty by harassing and iltreating the appellant. Therefore the appellant filed the above HMOP. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that even during the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court, the appellant has given a false complaint against the respondent. The respondent is always ready and willing to live with the appellant. The appellant has made a demand for dowry. The respondent has never left the matrimonial home on her own, hence, no interference is required. 4. On perusal of the order passed by the Family Court and the entire materials available on record would show that the contention of the appellant is that the respondent demanded a better house and on discussion it was rejected. It is the arranged marriage. The parties only after knowing very well about each other's financial status, has conducted the marriage. In the house of the appellant there were two portions. In one portion the appellant and the respondent were living and in the another portion the appellant's parents and brothers were living. Therefore, the family Court has given a factual finding against the appellant that the house is so small to accommodate the appellant and the respondent. On the contrary it is the specific case of the respondent that she is always ready and willing to live with the appellant. Though P.W.2 was examined about the settlement to be arrived at between the parties, even has stated that the respondent was ready and willing to live with the appellant. The respondent has taken a consistent stand about her readiness and willingness. It is the appellant who gave complaint in Ex.P.1 against the respondent and her family members, alleging theft of Rs. 5,000/- and 5 sovereigns of gold. The respondent has taken a consistent stand about her readiness and willingness. It is the appellant who gave complaint in Ex.P.1 against the respondent and her family members, alleging theft of Rs. 5,000/- and 5 sovereigns of gold. The trial Court rightly found that the said complaint is highly motivated. Even it is the case of the appellant that the respondent and her family members are having better house and there is no after thought to come to the place of the appellant from Cumbum to Madurai and indulge in the other offences alleged. In fact the complaint was also closed. 5. Even in the reply given to the legal notice the respondent has stated that she is ready and willing to live with the appellant. For the cruelty the appellant has not proved any evidence. He has in his affidavit has admitted that he would incur problems in life after the marriage, as it was conduted without matching of horoscope of the parties. Therefore the family court rightly rendered inference against the appellant. Though finding has been M.M. given, it is the appellant who desserted the respondent and not vice versa. 6. Considering the above, this Court does not find any error warranting interference of this Court to the judgment rendered by the Family Court. Therefore the appeal is liable dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellanous appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.