Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4552 (MAD)

R. Polraj v. P. Thamarai Selvi

2018-12-19

T.RAVINDRAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. In this civil miscellaneous second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgment and Decree, dated 08.12.2008, passed in H.M.C.M.A.No.33 of 2005, on the file of the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputtur, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 11.10.2004, passed in H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2003, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivakasi. 2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner had levied the case against the respondent for divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. 4. 2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner had levied the case against the respondent for divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. 4. Briefly stated, according to the petitioner's case, he is a Secondary Grade Teacher, whereas the respondent holds B.Sc., B.Ed., Degree and accordingly, on account of the higher educational qualification, the respondent used to behave in a superiority complex and thereby, showing disrespect to the petitioner, on the presumption that she is a highly qualified person than the petitioner and thereby, also exhibited resistance in leading the matrimonial life at the village and the respondent shown her inclination only to the prosperous and luxurious life and thereby, used to chide the petitioner one way or the other and also not doing any household works and expected only the petitioner's mother to do all the works in the home and on the above said reasonings also, used to pick quarrel often with the petitioner and his mother and leave the matrimonial home to her parents house and only at the instance of the petitioner, she would again return back to the matrimonial home and furthermore, she used to demand money from the petitioner for meeting the needs of her family members and thereby, according to the petitioner, he had been forced to borrow monies from various sources and meanwhile, it is stated that the respondent got conceived and again left the matrimonial home to her parents house, without providing any information and also demanded that the petitioner should pay Rs.3,50,000/- to her brother for the purpose of purchasing a lorry and imposed a condition that she would return to the marital home only on the payment of the above said sum and therefore, the petitioner prevailed upon his brother to pay the above said sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent's brother and even after the receipt of the above said sum, the respondent did not choose to mend her ways and on the other hand, even went to the extent of lodging a complaint against the petitioner, without any sound cause and thereby, contended that inasmuch as the respondent had left the matrimonial home voluntarily, without any justifiable cause and also inflicted cruelty upon him, thereby, leading to the conclusion that the marital life could not be resumed further, as stated above, the petitioner had been necessitated to seek the relief of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 5. Per contra, the respondent would plead that she had not ill-treated or showed disrespect to the petitioner as put-forth, on the ground of inequal educational qualification between the parties and contended that the respondent is the daughter of the petitioner's sister and therefore, the petitioner is well aware of the educational qualification of the respondent even prior to the marriage and the parties are close relatives to each other, even before the marriage and therefore, to say that the respondent had ill-treated or behaved cruelly with the petitioner and did not show respect on the ground of educational qualification are all made only for the purpose of the case and would also state that the letters sent by the petitioner to her mother would expose the cordial life between the petitioner and the respondent and the case of the petitioner that the respondent had been demanding money for meeting the requirements of her family members is false and also denied the fact that she has been picking up quarrel with the petitioner with reference to the same and also disputed that the fact that she has insisted payment of Rs.3,50,000/- for her brother for the purpose of purchasing a lorry and no doubt, the respondent's brother had borrowed the above said sum from the petitioner's brother and however, the said sum had not been received by any compulsion as put-forth by the petitioner and furthermore, the above said sum had been settled between the parties concerned and inasmuch as the petitioner had been ill-treating the respondent one way or the other, the respondent had been forced to lodge the complaint before the Police only for reunion and not for any other purpose and accordingly, when the Police advised both parties to live together, she has been forced to withdraw the complaint preferred by her and therefore, the divorce petition preferred by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 6. The Courts below, on a consideration of the materials placed on record by the petitioner and the respondent, both oral and documentary, were pleased to dismiss the case preferred by the petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil miscellaneous second appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. 7. 6. The Courts below, on a consideration of the materials placed on record by the petitioner and the respondent, both oral and documentary, were pleased to dismiss the case preferred by the petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil miscellaneous second appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. 7. No doubt, as could be seen from the case projected by the respective parties, the petitioner and the respondent are not possessing similar academic qualification, on the other hand, it is found that the petitioner is only a Secondary Grade Teacher, whereas, the respondent holds B.Sc., B.Ed., Degree. However, as rightly found by the Appellate Court, though the respondent holds B.Sc., B.Ed., Degree, she is found to be unemployed, whereas, the petitioner is found to be working as a Teacher. No doubt, the inequal educational qualification between the parties would to some extent lead to psychological complex between them and incompatibility, which would arise between the couple, on the above said ground, could not be magnified or visualized to such an extent that the difference, which had occurred between the parties on the above said factor, would lead to irretrievable break down of marriage between them. As rightly found by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, the difference, which would occur between the couple, as regards the inequal educational qualification possessed between them, should be agreed to be reconciled between them one way or the other, by understanding each other and if not mutually sorted out, the same would create unnecessary prejudice and problems between them one way or the other. Therefore, the above said ground projected by the petitioner for seeking the divorce from the respondent, on the ground of cruelty, on the score that the respondent has been showing disrespect to him, as such, cannot be readily accepted for annulling the marriage. 8. The second ground of cruelty projected by the petitioner is that the respondent has been demanding money from him often for satisfying the requirements of her family members one way or the other and thereby, the petitioner has been forced to borrow money from various sources and thereby, she had inflicted cruelty, and in this connection, the documents marked as Exs.P1 and P2 are pressed into service. No doubt, by way of Exs.P1 and P2, it is seen that the petitioner had borrowed money from third parties. No doubt, by way of Exs.P1 and P2, it is seen that the petitioner had borrowed money from third parties. However, when there is no material to hold that by way of the borrowals made by the petitioner under Exs.P1 and P2, the amount thereby received had been utilized for meeting the requirements of the respondent's family members, when as per the recitals contained in Exs.P1 and P2, it is found that the petitioner had borrowed the above said sums, for agricultural purpose and meeting his family expenses, to say that the said amount had been borrowed only for satisfying the requirements of the respondent's family members, particularly, when there is no material to sustain the same, as such, cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the above said ground projected for divorce as a cruelty inflicted on him by the respondent had been rightly, rejected by the Courts below. 9. The third ground of cruelty is that the respondent had insisted the petitioner to advance a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to her brother for the purpose of purchasing a lorry and on that ground also, picked up quarrel with him and left to her parental house voluntarily. The said fact is disputed by the respondent. No doubt, from the materials placed on record, it is seen that the respondent's brother had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the petitioner's brother and the materials also disclose that thereafter, the respondent's brother and the petitioner's brother had settled the amount and in such view of the matter, when there is no material worth acceptance on the part of the petitioner that it is he who had prevailed upon his brother to settle the amount to the respondent's brother and when it is found that the parties are close relatives to each other, even prior to the marriage and accordingly, when it is found that the petitioner's brother is also relative to the respondent's family closely, accordingly, there is nothing unusual in the respondent's brother receiving the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the petitioner's brother by way of loan and accordingly, when the said transaction has been settled between the parties one way or the other, the above said ground projected for seeking divorce as amounting to cruelty cannot be accepted in any manner. No doubt, at some stage, the respondent had left the matrimonial home. No doubt, at some stage, the respondent had left the matrimonial home. When according to the respondent, the same is only due to the cruel behaviour of the petitioner, it is found that with a view to reunite with the petitioner, it is seen that she has lodged the police compliant against the petitioner. Later, on wisdom prevailing upon the respondent at the intervention of the police and accordingly, it is stated that she had been forced to accept that she had lodged a false case against the petitioner and in such view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of the above said change of stand on the part of the respondent, as if she had deliberately lodged the police complaint against him and on that ground seek divorce on cruelty. When it is found that the police complaint itself has been lodged by the respondent only for the purpose of reuniting with the petitioner and accordingly, when at some stage of the matter, the parties had chosen to reunite, accordingly, it is found that the respondent had been forced to give the letter marked as Ex.P3, by that alone, it cannot be construed or held that the respondent had lodged a false complaint and thereby, committed cruelty on the petitioner for entitling the petitioner to obtain the divorce. The Courts below had rightly assessed the above aspects of the matter in the right perspective and in such view of the matter, no interference is called for with reference to the same. 10. The petitioner has put-forth the case that from 2001 onwards, the respondent had left the matrimonial home and despite his endeavour to bring her back to lead the marital life, she has not evinced interest and further, according to him, the respondent and her family members had not permitted him to see the child and also not even informed about the delivery of the child and therefore, sought for the relief prayed by him. However, as could be seen from the letters sent by the petitioner to the respondent's mother marked as Exs.R3 and R4, it is found that the marital life of the parties remained cordial. However, as could be seen from the letters sent by the petitioner to the respondent's mother marked as Exs.R3 and R4, it is found that the marital life of the parties remained cordial. That apart, when as could be seen from Ex.R1, it is only the petitioner who had accepted and given consent for the cesarean delivery of the respondent by putting his signature in the hospital records, the case of the petitioner that he has not even been informed about the delivery of the child by the respondent and her family members, as such, cannot be accepted. Though the petitioner would claim that he had endeavoured to bring the respondent to lead the marital life, however, with reference to the same, there is absolutely no proof. In this connection, the petitioner has not endeavoured to examine any independent person and also not sent notice calling upon the respondent to live with him. On the other hand, it is found that it is only the respondent, who has lodged the police complaint enabling her to live with the petitioner one way or the other. In this connection, the petitioner has not endeavoured to examine any independent person and also not sent notice calling upon the respondent to live with him. On the other hand, it is found that it is only the respondent, who has lodged the police complaint enabling her to live with the petitioner one way or the other. In such view of the matter, it is found that the conduct of the respondent would not be characterized or determined that she had voluntarily separated from the respondent to put an end to the marital life and on the other hand, on account of the difference which had crept in between the parties as well as the cruel attitude of the petitioner one way or the other, the respondent is found to have been forced to live separately from the petitioner and in such view of the matter, as determined by the Courts below, in a marital life, there is bound to be differences between the couple one way or the other and the couple should understand each other and also try to show patience against each other in their behaviour, even if the other spouse commits any mistake or folly and should not blow the same with a view to put an end to the marital life forever and accordingly, the parties having separated each other for one reason or the other, but the plea of desertion as sought to be made out by the petitioner having not been established as above discussed, as also the alleged cruelty of the respondent projected by the petitioner for seeking the relief of divorce also having not been established as above discussed, in all, it is seen that the Courts below have rightly assessed the rival contentions of both parties by analyzing the materials placed on record in the correct perspective, both factually as well as legally and dismissed the divorce petition preferred by the petitioner. No valid reason is projected to interfere with the same, accordingly, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in this civil miscellaneous second appeal. 11. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision in Arun Kumar Jain @ Bunty vs. Geeta, reported in 2014-3-L.W.577. The principles of law outlined in the above-cited decision are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at hand. 12. 11. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision in Arun Kumar Jain @ Bunty vs. Geeta, reported in 2014-3-L.W.577. The principles of law outlined in the above-cited decision are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at hand. 12. Resultantly, the civil miscellaneous second appeal is dismissed. No costs.