Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1222 (MAD)

P. Karthikeyan v. Sarathi

2021-03-31

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, S.KANNAMMAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : S. Kannammal, J. Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of Family Courts Act, 1984, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 23.12.2016 made in I.D.O.P.No.57 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant/husband against the judgment and decree passed in I.D.O.P.No.57 of 2014, dated 23.12.2016 by the Family Court, Dindigul. 2. The case of the appellant is that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 26.01.2011 at CSI Church as per Christian Custom. After marriage, the appellant and respondent lived together as husband and wife only for a week. Later, misunderstanding arose between them and the respondent left the matrimonial home on 05.02.2011 by telling that she doesn't like to live with the appellant. Inspite of repeated requests and inspite of panchayat held in the presence of elders, the respondent refused to come and live with the appellant. The respondent never behaved as a dutiful wife whereas the appellant was always ready and willing to be a dutiful husband. The respondent without any valid reason deserted the husband. The respondent took all her certificates, clothing and jewels and left the matrimonial home. The appellant issued a legal notice on 13.11.2013 asking the respondent to come and live with the appellant. Though the respondent received the notice, she did not respond to the same. The respondent refused to live with the appellant and was continuously deserting the husband. The respondent preferred a complaint against the appellant and his parents before the All Women Police Station, Dindigul with false allegations. After enquiry, the appellant was asked to come on 22.12.2013 to the police station and take the respondent with him. On 22.12.2013, the appellant went to the police station with his parents to take the respondent but the respondent did not come to the police station, which caused mental cruelty to the appellant. Hence, the appellant filed the petition for seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 3. The respondent admitted the marriage and denied all the other allegations. The respondent claimed that she lived with the appellant for three months and she was being a dutiful wife. The respondent is a post graduate. After marriage, the appellant was working at Chennai and visited the respondent once in a week. 3. The respondent admitted the marriage and denied all the other allegations. The respondent claimed that she lived with the appellant for three months and she was being a dutiful wife. The respondent is a post graduate. After marriage, the appellant was working at Chennai and visited the respondent once in a week. In those three months, the appellant and his parents started treating the respondent disrespectfully and in demeaning way. The appellant used filthy language after high alcohol consumption. When the same was complained to the parents of the appellant, they behaved in a hurtful way. After three months, all of a sudden, the appellant left the respondent at her parental home stating that his parents did not like the respondent, and also that he would arrange a separate house to reside. Whenever the respondent enquired about the separate house and asked him to take her back, the appellant evaded by stating irrelevant reasons. The respondent, through her parents, relatives and church fathers, met the appellant and requested him to take her back. The appellant refused by telling false allegations. On receipt of the legal notice from the appellant, the respondent preferred a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Dindigul. On enquiry, the appellant agreed in writing that he will arrange a separate house within a month and live with the respondent. But, he has filed this petition with false allegation. The respondent has sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. Before the Family Court, the appellant/husband examined himself as P.W.1 and one Pushpanathan was examined as PW2 and marked Exs.Pl to P6. On the side of the respondent/wife, she examined herself as R.W.1 and one Joice Maragatham was examined as RW2 and no documents were marked. 5. The learned Family Court Judge, Dindigul, after perusing the materials available on record, both oral and documentary, has dismissed the petition filed by the husband. Aggrieved over the said order, the appellant/husband filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. The points for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition are: (i) whether the acts of the respondent amounts to cruelty and whether the appellant is entitled for divorce? (ii) whether the acts of the respondent amounts to desertion and whether the appellant is entitled for divorce? 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. The points for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition are: (i) whether the acts of the respondent amounts to cruelty and whether the appellant is entitled for divorce? (ii) whether the acts of the respondent amounts to desertion and whether the appellant is entitled for divorce? (ii) whether the learned Family Court Judge was right in dismissing the petition filed by the husband? 8. There is no dispute about the marriage between the appellant and the respondent on 26.01.2011. Admittedly, the appellant is a B.E., Civil Engineer and the respondent is a graduate in M.Sc. M.Ed. At the time of marriage, the appellant was working at Chennai. 9. According to the appellant, after marriage, the appellant and respondent started their matrimonial life at his house in a joint family and within a week of marriage, the respondent left the matrimonial home by telling that she did not like to live with the appellant. While she left, she had taken her certificates and jewels with her. 10. It is the case of the appellant that in spite of taking earnest effort for reunion, the respondent did not come to live with the appellant. The appellant sent a legal notice Ex.P4 on 13.11.2013 and after receipt of the notice, the respondent immediately preferred a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Dindigul on 20.11.2013. Further, though the appellant and his parents went to All Women Police Station to take the respondent on 22.12.2013, the respondent did not turn up which caused mental cruelty to the appellant. 11. Per contra, the respondent contended that she lived in the matrimonial home for three months and during that period, the parents of the appellant started treating the respondent disrespectfully and in a demeaning way. It is also the case of the respondent that the appellant alone left the respondent at her parental home by telling that he would look for a separate house since his mother did not like her. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant evaded by telling one or other reasons whenever the respondent enquired about the separate house. The respondent also would contend that steps were taken for reunion through her parents, relatives and Church father. 12. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant evaded by telling one or other reasons whenever the respondent enquired about the separate house. The respondent also would contend that steps were taken for reunion through her parents, relatives and Church father. 12. The respondent contended that the appellant sent a legal notice with false allegations and hence, she preferred a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Dindigul and in the enquiry, the appellant agreed in writing that he would take the respondent within a month after fixing a separate house. It is further contended that the appellant without taking the respondent for a marital life, had filed a petition for divorce with false allegation and sought for dismissal of the petition. 13. Of course, the appellant made admission in his cross examination about setting up a separate house, but, denied the allegation of the respondent that she was disliked by his parents. The appellant had also denied the allegation of leaving the respondent at her parental home by himself. 14. The appellant in his cross examination, dated 15.07.2015 has deposed as follows:- 'vd; ngw;Nwhllf;F vjph;kDjhuiu gpbf;ftpy;iy vd;Wk; mjdhy; NtW tPL ghh;j;J vjph;kDjhuiu Fb itf;fpNwd; vd;W nrhd;Ndd; vd;why; NtW tPL ghh;j;J Fbitg;gjhf nrhd;dj cz;ik. Mdhy; vd; ngw;Nwhllf;F vjph;kDjhuiu gpbf;ftpy;iy vd;W $WtJ rhpay;y. mjdhy; vjph;kDjhuiu ehd; mtUila ngw;Nwhh; tPl;by; tpl;Ltpl;Nld; vd;why; rhpay;y". 15. Admittedly the respondent on the receipt of legal notice from the appellant for reunion, immediately, preferred a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Dindigul, for dowry harassment. 16. RW1 in her cross examination, dated 08.10.2015 has deposed as follows:- “TAMIL” 17. The appellant contended that the respondent instead of taking steps for reunion after the receipt of the legal notice, preferred a false complaint of dowry harassment after three years of marriage and the said act itself would prove the ulterior motive of the respondent in not joining with the appellant. 18. The appellant would submit that on enquiry upon the complaint by the respondent at All Women Police Station, the appellant was asked to take the respondent from the police station on 22.12.2013 to a separate house and when the appellant and his parents went to the police station to take the respondent, the respondent did not turn up which caused him mental cruelty. 19. The respondent, who was examined as RW1 has also made an admission to that effect. 19. The respondent, who was examined as RW1 has also made an admission to that effect. The respondent in her cross examination, dated 08.10.2015, has deposed as follows:- “TAMIL” The above clear and categorical evidence of the respondent would prove the intention of the respondent not to live with the appellant. 20. If really the respondent suffered at the hands of the appellant and his parents, nothing prevented her from filing a petition or complaint before the appropriate authorities. The attitude of the respondent in preferring complaint on dowry harassment immediately after receiving the legal notice from the appellant for reunion would categorically prove the allegation of the appellant that she had left the matrimonial home within a week by telling that she did not like the appellant, as correct. 21. The evidence of RW2 who is the close relative of the respondent is of no use to prove the allegation of the respondent. It is clear from the evidence of the appellant and the respondent that the respondent left the matrimonial home within a short span of marriage with a false allegation against the appellant and his parents, in order to live in a separate house. The false complaint of dowry harassment by the respondent immediately after the receipt of legal notice of the appellant for reunion after three years of marriage obviously would amount to mental cruelty. Further, the non appearance of the respondent on 22.12.2013 when the appellant and his parents went to the police station as per the instructions of the police, would amount to nothing but desertion on the part of the respondent. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A.Deepa, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 , in paragraph No. 16 has held as follows:- "16....Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse". 23. In the case of Samar Ghose Vs. 23. In the case of Samar Ghose Vs. Jay a Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has set out illustrative cases where inference of "mental cruelty" can be drawn. In paragraph No. 101 (iv), (x) (xiv) has held as follows:- "(iv)Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty " (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, if may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty'. 24. In the present case on hand, it is found that the respondent/wife without any valid reason left the matrimonial home within a short span of marriage depriving the appellant of conjugal life. Further, the respondent preferred a false complaint of dowry harassment against the appellant and his parents in order to have a separate house. It is also found clear that the appellant wantonly did not appear before the All Women Police Station, Dindigul when the appellant/husband and his parents came there to take the respondent/wife with them. All the above acts and attitude of the respondent/wife amounts nothing but mental cruelty to the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife deserted the appellant/husband for a statutory period without any valid reason. 25. The learned Family Court Judge without analyzing the averments and evidence of parties, dismissed the petition which is not sustainable. The findings recorded by the Family Court, is not correct. 25. The learned Family Court Judge without analyzing the averments and evidence of parties, dismissed the petition which is not sustainable. The findings recorded by the Family Court, is not correct. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that unsubstantiated allegations and unreasonable desertion by the respondent would amount to mental cruelty and the marriage deserves to be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 26. In view of the above discussions, the Judgment and Decree of the Judge, Family Court, Dindigul, is set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is allowed and the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 26.01.2011, is dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of the cruelty under Section 10 (vii) & (x) of Indian Divorce Act. No costs.