Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 137 (MAD)

Krishnaraj v. Sathyapriya

2019-01-10

C.SARAVANAN, R.SUBBIAH

body2019
JUDGMENT : R. Subbiah, J. This appeal arises out of the order dated 25.10.2016 passed in H.M.O.P. No. 660 of 2014 on the file of Family Court, Erode. By the order dated 25.10.2016, the Family Court dismissed HMOP No. 660 of 2014 filed by the appellant for dissolution of the marriage solemnised between him and the respondent on 06.05.1997. 2. The appellant has filed HMOP No. 660 of 2014 under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of The Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage solemnised between him and the respondent on the ground of cruelty. It was stated therein by the appellant that on 06.05.1997, the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnised at Sakthi Vinayakar Koil, Chithode, Erode District as per Hindu rites and customs in the midst of friends, family members and relatives of both sides. Subsequently, on 11.06.1997, the marriage was registered before the Sub- Registrar, Erode. According to the appellant, soon after the marriage, the respondent had stated that she married him not on her own accord but due to the compulsion of her parents. Such a statement of the respondent, according to the appellant, had shocked and upset him. However, the appellant convinced the respondent and lived with her in the hope that she will understand the true sense of the marriage by passage of time. Due to the wedlock, the respondent gave birth to a female child named as Devadarshini. It is also the grievance of the appellant that the respondent never gave respect to him and his parents, she was always quarrelsome and refused to discharge her matrimonial obligations. The respondent also suspected the character of the appellant and checked each and every one of his activities. During the year 2003, at the instigation of the respondent, the appellant had set up a separate residence at Erode and lived there. Even after shifting to the separate residence, the respondent did not behave properly. She quarrelled with the neighbours and indulged in unnecessary fight with them. In the year 2006, the aunt of the appellant and her daughter visited their home but the respondent suspected as if the appellant is having an affair with the daughter of the aunt. Even the daughter of the aunt understood the suspicious nature of the respondent and openly uttered that she has nothing to do with the appellant and their relationship is mature and open. Even the daughter of the aunt understood the suspicious nature of the respondent and openly uttered that she has nothing to do with the appellant and their relationship is mature and open. Inspite of the same, when the appellant went to Gobichettipalayam to see his parents, the respondent suspected as if he is going to meet his aunt's daughter. The respondent always checked the mobile phone of the appellant to see whether there is any new number from which calls have been received. On 08.11.2013, the father of the appellant died and even on that day she quarrelled with him and his relatives and created an ugly scene. The brother of the appellant by name Balamurugan is a deaf and dumb person and he is a dependant of the appellant. However, when he came to see the appellant and his widowed mother, the respondent did not permit him in the house and therefore, the appellant's deaf and dumb brother is living alone without any one to support him. Above all, the respondent wilfully refused to cohabit with him and thereby he was subjected to untold mental agony and hardship. The respondent made it clear that she was not happy with the appellant and that she did not want to live with him. Thus, the respondent wilfully denied conjugal bliss to the appellant and thereby he was subjected to matrimonial cruelty. On 18.06.2014, the respondent wilfully quarrelled with the appellant and deserted his matrimonial company. Now, the appellant is living with his mother at Nesianur. On 24.06.2014, a meeting was convened among the elders of both sides and even thereafter, the respondent refused to live with him. All the efforts made by the appellant to bring the respondent back to the matrimonial home failed. Therefore, the appellant has filed the Original Petition for dissolution of the marriage. 3. On notice, the respondent along with the minor female child Devadarshini, filed M.C. No. 18 of 2015 before the Family Court, Erode contending that the respondent studied upto Higher Secondary Plus two and was employed in a company called Lakhotia Computer Centre. It was also stated that the father of the respondent deserted her mother and she was nurtured by her grand mother. It was also stated that after such desertion by her father, her mother had married one Moorthy. It was also stated that the father of the respondent deserted her mother and she was nurtured by her grand mother. It was also stated that after such desertion by her father, her mother had married one Moorthy. The appellant got acquainted with the respondent when he was working in the above said Computer Centre and thereafter, the appellant expressed his intention to marry her. However, the respondent wanted the appellant to wait for some time since her elder sister was yet to be given in marriage. Inspite of the same, due to the insistence of the appellant, the respondent went to the Sub- Registrar Office, where the appellant, by furnishing false documents as to the solemnisation of marriage, got a certificate as if the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 11.06.1997. Subsequently, the appellant insisted the grand mother of the respondent to arrange for their marriage but when it was refused and the appellant was requested to wait for some time till the respondent's elder sister is given in marriage, he threatened to disclose the registration of their marriage on 11.06.1997 to every one. Therefore, the respondent requested her grandmother to give her consent to her marriage with the appellant and accordingly, their marriage was solemnised on 24.08.1998 at Vinayagar Temple, Kooduthurai, Bhavani Taluk. Since no one attended their marriage on 24.08.1998, their marriage was solemnised by following the customs and rites on 04.09.1998 at Marudhamalai Murugan Temple, which was attended by their relatives and friends, This was followed by a marriage reception on 06.09.1998 at G.K.P. Marriage Hall, Gopichettipalayam. Thereafter, the appellant and the respondent commenced their matrimonial journey at the house of the appellant. Due to the wedlock, on 09.06.1999, a female child was born. After the birth of the child, the appellant ignored the respondent for one reason or the other. When the respondent questioned the same, the appellant informed her that she was not the apt match for him. In this context, there was matrimonial quarrel which emanated between the appellant and the respondent. At this stage, the respondent had seen some text messages received by the appellant in his mobile phone from one Lakshmi Priya, a relative of the appellant. When the respondent contacted the said Lakshmi Priya, she informed her that it was the appellant who forced and compelled her to marry him, but she refused. At this stage, the respondent had seen some text messages received by the appellant in his mobile phone from one Lakshmi Priya, a relative of the appellant. When the respondent contacted the said Lakshmi Priya, she informed her that it was the appellant who forced and compelled her to marry him, but she refused. When this was questioned by the respondent, the appellant harassed and abused her. On 08.11.2013, the father of the appellant died. After the death of his father, the appellant had developed his contact with the above said Lakshmi Priya and totally ignored the respondent in all respects. The appellant failed to maintain her and the minor child by providing the basic comforts and necessities. There were occasion when the appellant physically assaulted the respondent for trivial reasons. The appellant stayed out of the matrimonial home for an indefinite period whereby the respondent was made to struggle to maintain the family without any financial resource. At this stage, the respondent received a notice in FCOP No. 660 of 2014 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. According to the respondent, it was she, who was subjected to cruelty by the appellant and the Original Petition has been filed with false and untenable averments. It was further stated that the respondent is always ready and willing to live with the appellant, but it was the appellant who is neglecting the respondent and the minor child. It was further stated that with the salary received by her, it was difficult to maintain herself and the minor child and that she is not resourceful enough to meet the basic needs. On the other hand, the appellant is running a Computer Service Centre in the name of "Modern Computers" and earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month, besides he is having immovable property worth about Rs.20 lakhs. Therefore, the respondent prayed for a direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to her for her maintenance and Rs.20,000/- for maintenance of the minor child. 4. Apart from filing M.C. No. 18 of 2015, the respondent has also filed counter affidavit in HMOP No. 660 of 2014 filed by the appellant, in which she has denied each and every one of the allegations made by the appellant. 4. Apart from filing M.C. No. 18 of 2015, the respondent has also filed counter affidavit in HMOP No. 660 of 2014 filed by the appellant, in which she has denied each and every one of the allegations made by the appellant. While denying the entire averments made in HMOP No. 660 of 2014 filed by the appellant in the Original Petition, the respondent reiterated the same averments which she has made in MC No. 18 of 2015 in the counter affidavit as well. 5. The appellant has filed a rejoinder denying the averments made in MC No. 18 of 2015. According to the appellant, the respondent is earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- through her employment as a Teacher in Carmel Matriculation School, Erode and that she is resourceful enough to maintain herself. At the same time, it was stated that due to stiff competition in the business, the appellant is earning a mere Rs.10,000/- per month and it is grossly insufficient to maintain himself and his aged mother. However, the appellant admitted that he is duty bound to maintain the minor daughter and he expressed his readiness and willingness to pay maintenance to the minor daughter and not to the respondent/wife. 6. Before the Family Court common evidence was let in, both in HMOP No. 660 of 2014 filed by the appellant and M.C. No. 18 of 2015 filed by the respondent. The appellant examined himself as PW1 and his friend Mr. David as PW2 and marked Exs. P1 to P6. On behalf of the respondent, she examined herself as RW1 and her sister Vijividhya as RW2 and marked Exs. R1 to R13. The Family Court, upon analysing the oral and documentary evidence, particularly the deposition of PW1/appellant has concluded that it was the appellant who subjected the respondent to matrimonial cruelty. The Family Court pointed out that the respondent has filed Ex.R13, phone call list relating to the number of phone calls and text messages sent by the appellant to his aunt's daughter Lakshmi Priya. On perusal of Ex.R13, the Family Court pointed out that the appellant had conversed with his aunt's daughter Lakshmi Priya during odd hours and each calls lasted from 30 minutes to 40 minutes. On perusal of Ex.R13, the Family Court pointed out that the appellant had conversed with his aunt's daughter Lakshmi Priya during odd hours and each calls lasted from 30 minutes to 40 minutes. Referring to the deposition of PW1, the Family Court concluded that the appellant himself admitted that he had sent at least 200 to 300 text messages to Lakshmi Priya during the month of May 2014. Based on this admission, the Family Court concluded that the appellant was guilty of extra marital relationship with his aunt's daughter Lakshmi Priya and thereby he subjected the respondent to matrimonial cruelty. Therefore, the Family Court refused to grant a decree of divorce as prayed for by the appellant. As regards the Maintenance Case filed by the respondent, the Family Court has concluded that the respondent failed to disclose her employment and the earnings received thereof to the Court. However, the fact remains that the respondent is employed as a Teacher in a School and therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance. At the same time, the Family Court, taking note of the statement of the appellant that he is ready to provide maintenance to the minor child, directed him to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month towards maintenance to the minor child. 7. Challenging the common order passed by the Family Court, the appellant has in fact filed CMA Nos. 127 and 128 of 2017. However, during the pendency of this appeal, being CMA No. 127 of 2017, the appellant has withdrawn CMA No. 128 of 2017 filed by him as against the order of maintenance granted by the Family Court with an endorsement that the relief sought for has become infructuous. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the appellant was subjected to matrimonial cruelty by the respondent by reason of her act of suspecting the fidelity of the appellant. According to the learned counsel for appellant, the respondent, would often quarrel with the appellant and on one pretext or the other refused to have conjugal cohabitation with the appellant and thereby the appellant was made to suffer immensely. This was also clearly pleaded by the appellant in para No.10 of the proof affidavit filed before the Family Court. According to the learned counsel for appellant, the respondent, would often quarrel with the appellant and on one pretext or the other refused to have conjugal cohabitation with the appellant and thereby the appellant was made to suffer immensely. This was also clearly pleaded by the appellant in para No.10 of the proof affidavit filed before the Family Court. In effect, it is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the respondent had willfully refused to confer conjugal bliss to the appellant, which amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (i-a) of The Hindu Marriage Act. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the appellant would place reliance on the decision (S. Indirakumari vs. S.Subbaiah) reported in 2003 (1) CTC 259 to contend that refusal to have sexual intercourse by the wife amounts to cruelty. According to the counsel for the appellant, both the appellant and the respondent are hale and healthy and are capable of indulging in conjugal cohabitation, while so, the respondent is duty bound to fulfil such lawful desire of the appellant. However, the respondent, without any justifiable cause or reason had refused conjugal cohabitation and thereby caused mental agony and prejudice to the appellant. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the respondent always suspected the appellant as if he is having an extra marital affair with his aunt's daughter Lakshmi Priya, however, it was not proved by the respondent. When it was contended by the respondent in the counter affidavit about the alleged relationship the appellant had with his aunt's daughter Lakshmi Priya and the same was not proved, it would amount to character assassination and consequently, the appellant is entitled for grant of a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is also not the case of the respondent that because of the fact that the appellant had sent text messages to his uncle's daughter Lakshmi Priya, she refused conjugal cohabitation with the appellant. Further, when RW1 was examined, a specific question was posed to her as to whether the sending text messages or conversing with others over mobile phone by her husband is improper, to which she only stated that conversing continuously during odd hours alone is improper. Further, when RW1 was examined, a specific question was posed to her as to whether the sending text messages or conversing with others over mobile phone by her husband is improper, to which she only stated that conversing continuously during odd hours alone is improper. Further, the respondent has deposed that she was not aware of the nature of text messages exchanged between the appellant and the said Lakshmi Priya, while so, according to the counsel for the appellant, mere exchange of text message or conversing over the mobile phone cannot be said to point out that the appellant had indulged in extra marital affair with his aunt's daughter. In any event, by suspecting the character of the appellant, the respondent had caused him enormous cruelty and therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Family Court and to allow this appeal. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was registered on 11.06.1997, however the marriage was solemnised only on 04.09.1998 followed by a reception held at G.K.B. Kalyana Mandapam, Gobichettipalayam on 06.09.1998. Due to the wedlock, a female child by name Devadarshini was born on 09.06.1999. After 16 years of the marriage, the appellant has filed the Original Petition contending that the respondent refused cohabitation and thereby he was subjected to mental agony. However, it is not the case of the appellant that the marriage was not consummated and that the respondent refused sexual intercourse soon after the marriage. In such circumstances, after 16 years of marriage, the appellant cannot contend that he was denied conjugal bliss and thereby he was subjected to matrimonial cruelty. Further, it was the appellant who subjected the matrimonial cruelty by having an extra marital relationship with his uncle's daughter Lakshmi Priya. In order to prove the same, the respondent has marked Exs. R6, R7, R8 and R12, mobile phone payment receipts and Ex.R13, Mobile Phone Call list which clearly indicates that the appellant had sent around 200 to 300 text messages to her and also conversed with her frequently even during odd hours. Further, the respondent herself spoke to Lakshmi Priya, aunt's daughter of the appellant, who has stated that it was the appellant who insisted her to marry him during the subsistence of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. Further, the respondent herself spoke to Lakshmi Priya, aunt's daughter of the appellant, who has stated that it was the appellant who insisted her to marry him during the subsistence of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. Further, PW2, friend of the appellant was examined before the Family Court and he had stated in his cross-examination that he himself had advised the appellant not to have any conversation with his aunt's daughter Lakshmi Priya and cautioned him that it would ruin his matrimonial life with the respondent. He further went on to depose that he also spoke to Lakshmi Priya who has informed PW2 that the appellant is insisting her to marry him but she has refused such proposal. Thus, it is evident that the appellant, during the subsistence of the marriage with the respondent, had insisted his uncle's daughter to marry him and thereby he had engaged himself in an unlawful relationship with the said Lakshmi Priya. This was amply proved by the respondent not only by marking Ex.R13, but also through the deposition of the appellant himself as PW1 and his friend Mr. David as PW2. The Family Court, having regard to the above, has correctly concluded that the appellant is the wrong doer and he is not entitled to the relief of decree of divorce. The learned counsel for the respondent would further contend that the respondent has marked Exs. R6 to R8, R12 and R13 to prove the extra marital relationship the appellant had with the said Lakshmi Priya, while so, it was the appellant who had committed matrimonial cruelty on the respondent. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Darshan Gupta vs. Radhika Gupta) reported in (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1 wherein it was held that a party seeking divorce has to be innocent of blame. The claim for divorce cannot be maintained by a party under Section 13 (1) of The Hindu Marriage Act if he himself/ herself suffers from 'guilt' or 'fault'. Such a person cannot be allowed to raise an accusing finger at the respondent on the basis of the baseless allegations or seek for dissolution of the marriage thereon. The claim for divorce cannot be maintained by a party under Section 13 (1) of The Hindu Marriage Act if he himself/ herself suffers from 'guilt' or 'fault'. Such a person cannot be allowed to raise an accusing finger at the respondent on the basis of the baseless allegations or seek for dissolution of the marriage thereon. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the appellant himself was at fault and it is he who had subjected the respondent to matrimonial cruelty. While so, the appellant is dis-entitled to get the relief of dissolution of the marriage, which was rightly considered by the Family Court while dismissing the Original Petition. In such circumstance, the learned counsel for the respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. We have heard the counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. As we have dealt with the factual matrix of the case at great length, we refrain ourself from re-producing the same any further in this appeal, but only deal with those facts which are germane and absolutely necessary for us. 12. It is seen from the records that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was a love marriage. In fact, even before solemnisation of the marriage by following the religious rites and customs followed by Hindus, the appellant and the respondent have applied for registration of their marriage and a certificate of registration was obtained by the appellant from the competent authority on 11.06.1997 to show that their marriage was solemnised as per law. Thereafter, by following the religious rites and customs and in the presence of relatives of both sides, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 04.09.1998 which was followed by a marriage reception on 06.09.1999. Due to the wedlock, a female child by name Devadarshini was born on 09.06.1999 and she might be aged 19 years by now. These facts are not in dispute and rather they are admitted by both sides. 13. The present appeal arises out of the order passed by the Family Court in HMOP No. 660 of 2014 filed by the appellant for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty. This Petition was filed by the appellant by mainly contending that the respondent refused him conjugal bliss and cohabitation, thereby he was subjected to matrimonial cruelty. This Petition was filed by the appellant by mainly contending that the respondent refused him conjugal bliss and cohabitation, thereby he was subjected to matrimonial cruelty. In order to lend support to this averment of the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (S. Indirakumari vs. S.Subbaiah) reported in 2003 (1) CTC 259 wherein it was held that wilful refusal to have sexual intercourse by the wife amounts to cruelty. We are in respectful agreement with the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision, however, the facts, on the basis of which the said decision was laid, is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In that decision, the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the refusal of the wife to cohabit with the husband on the nuptial night and during the subsequent days. Further in that case, the husband and wife lived together only for seven days after the marriage. During the course of examination of the wife in that case, she admitted that there was no consummation of marriage during the short period of seven days when they lived together. It is in those circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court has held that wilful refusal on the part of the wife, soon after the marriage, would amount to cruelty. The ratio laid down in that case cannot be ipso facto applied in this case. In the present case, the marriage was consummated and due to the wedlock between the appellant and the respondent, a girl child was born. Further, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 04.09.1998 and after sixteen years, the present petition has been filed by the appellant before the Family Court on 22.12.2014 alleging that the respondent neglects him and refused conjugal bliss. In effect, after sixteen years of the marriage, the appellant has filed the Original Petition contending that the respondent had refused him conjugal bliss. Refusal of one of the spouse to cooperate in the conjugal relationship soon after the marriage can be considered as one of the grounds for dissolution of the marriage and a ground of cruelty. However, the same yardstick cannot be applied after sixteen long years of marriage between the appellant and the respondent. Refusal of one of the spouse to cooperate in the conjugal relationship soon after the marriage can be considered as one of the grounds for dissolution of the marriage and a ground of cruelty. However, the same yardstick cannot be applied after sixteen long years of marriage between the appellant and the respondent. Alleged lack of cooperation of the respondent to reciprocate and yield to the physical desire of the appellant long after sixteen years of marriage cannot amount to cruelty by the respondent. It may be due to several factors such as age, physical inability, commitment towards the children or family, aversion or lassitude or lack of libido to get physical intimacy over a period of time etc., This is a natural phenomenon on account of several reasons including ageing and no one can be blamed for it. The appellant has refused to gracefully acknowledge the changes associated with the ageing and the challenges which the life exposes. There is a lack of acceptance on the part of the appellant. This is more so that after the birth of the child and by passage of time, the other essence in family life gain significance and the frequency of physical relationship between the couple would witness a slowdown in the normal marriage life, but, it cannot be a regarded as a ground for dissolution of marriage. Even in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court relied on by the counsel for the appellant in Indirakumari's case mentioned supra, it was held that normal and healthy sexual relationship is one of the basic ingredients for a happy and harmonious marriage. However, denial of the same on account of ill health of one spouse may not amount to cruelty and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, having regard to the above ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court to the facts of this case, we hold that the appellant cannot succeed in his plea that after sixteen years of marriage he was refused cohabitation and on that ground he is entitled for decree of divorce. 14. On the other hand, the respondent had contended that it was she who was subjected to matrimonial cruelty at the instance of the appellant. 14. On the other hand, the respondent had contended that it was she who was subjected to matrimonial cruelty at the instance of the appellant. According to the respondent, the appellant had an extra marital relationship with his aunt's daughter by name Lakshmi Priya and this had led to frequent quarrel among them. It is the specific allegation of the respondent that the appellant was in the habit of sending text messages to the said Lakshmi Priya and also frequently conversed with her through mobile phone during odd hours. It is also contended by the respondent that when she spoke to the said Lakshmi Priya, she was informed that the appellant insisted and demanded Lakshmi Priya to marry him during the subsistence of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. In order to prove the so-called relationship between the appellant and the said Lakshmi Priya, the respondent has marked Exs. R6, R7, R8 and R12, payment subscription receipts for the mobile phone used by the appellant. The respondent also marked Ex.R13, cell phone call list. The appellant was also confronted with the calls made by him to the said Lakshmi Priya and he admitted having made several phone calls and sending text messages to the said Lakshmi Priya. When a specific question was posed to the appellant as to why he had sent around 590 text messages to Lakshmi Priya during May 2004, he has replied that he did not send 590 messages, rather, he had only sent around 200 to 300 text messages. The respondent also cross-examined PW2, friend of the appellant, who admitted that he has in fact advised the appellant to snap his relationship with the said Lakshmi Priya to avoid any confusion in the matrimonial life with the respondent, but the appellant did not heed to it. Thus, from the documentary evidence Exs. R6, R7, R8, R12 and R13 coupled with the deposition of PW1, PW2 and RW1, it is crystal clear that the appellant is the wrong doer who indulged in conversation with his aunt's daughter and also sent text messages during the subsistence of his marriage with the respondent. According to the respondent in her deposition as RW1, the appellant indulged in such phone conversion with his aunt's daughter Lakshmi Priya during odd hours and thereby largely contributed fo the matrimonial rift. According to the respondent in her deposition as RW1, the appellant indulged in such phone conversion with his aunt's daughter Lakshmi Priya during odd hours and thereby largely contributed fo the matrimonial rift. It is in those circumstances, the Family Court, by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence made available, had rightly portrayed the appellant as the wrong doer and concluded that a wrong doer is not entitled for any relief against his spouse. In this context, the learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Darshan Gupta vs. Radhika Gupta) reported in (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1 wherein it was held as follows :- "46. Despite our aforesaid conclusions, it is necessary to examine the instant controversy from another point of view. As noticed hereinabove, it was the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-wife, based on the pleadings filed by Radhika Gupta, as also, the evidence produced by her, that it was the husband Darshan Gupta alone, who was blameworthy of the medical condition of the respondent. It was submitted, that Darshan Gupta desires to encash on his own fault, by seeking dissolution of marriage, for a consequence, of which he himself was blameworthy. The instant submission, though not canvassed in that manner, can be based on a legal premise. A perusal of the grounds on which divorce can be sought under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, would reveal, that the same are grounds based on the ‘fault’ of the party against whom dissolution of marriage is sought. In matrimonial jurisprudence, such provisions are founded on the ‘matrimonial offence theory’ or the ‘fault theory’. Under this jurisprudential principle, it is only on the ground of an opponent’s fault, that a party may approach a Court for seeking annulment of his/her matrimonial alliance. In other words, if either of the parties is guilty of committing a matrimonial offence, the aggrieved party alone is entitled to divorce. The party seeking divorce under the “matrimonial offence theory” / the “fault theory” must be innocent. A party suffering “guilt” or “fault” disentitles himself/herself from consideration. Illustratively, desertion for a specified continuous period, is one of the grounds for annulment of marriage. The party seeking divorce under the “matrimonial offence theory” / the “fault theory” must be innocent. A party suffering “guilt” or “fault” disentitles himself/herself from consideration. Illustratively, desertion for a specified continuous period, is one of the grounds for annulment of marriage. But the aforesaid ground for annulment is available only, if the desertion is on account of the fault of the opposite party, and not fault of the party which has approached the Court. Therefore, if a husband’s act of cruelty, compels a wife to leave her matrimonial home, whereupon, she remains away from the husband for the stipulated duration, it would not be open to a husband to seek dissolution of marriage, on the ground of desertion. The reason being, that it is the husband himself who was at fault, and not the wife. This is exactly what the respondent has contended. Her claim is, that in actuality the appellant is making out a claim for a decree of divorce, on the basis of allegations for which he himself is singularly responsible. On the said allegations, it is Darshan Gupta, who deserves to be castigated. Therefore, he cannot be allowed to raise an accusing finger at the respondent on the basis of the said allegations, or to seek dissolution of marriage, thereon. 15. Applying the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above decision to the facts of this case, we hold that the appellant is the wrong doer who made several phone calls to his aunt's daughter and sent 200 to 300 text messages during odd hours, compelled his aunt's daughter much to her resistance with an intention to marry her when the marriage between him and the respondent was subsisting. For having committed such a blameworthy conduct, the appellant is not entitled to raise his little finger towards the respondent alleging that she subjected him to matrimonial cruelty. Even otherwise, the averments made in the Original Petition filed by the appellant, in our opinion, are bald, vague and generic and it does not constitute matrimonial cruelty within the meaning and definition of Section 13 (1) (i-a) of The Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant has not made out any case for interference by us. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant has not made out any case for interference by us. The conclusion reached by the Family Court that the appellant did not prove the averments he made in the Original Petition does not require our interference. Therefore, the Order passed by the Family Court deserve only to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant. 16. In the result, we confirm the Order dated 25.10.2016 passed in H.M.O.P. No. 660 of 2014 on the file of Family Court, Erode. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs.