Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 278 (MAD)

P. Rooba Rani v. Velusamy

2022-01-31

S.S.SUNDAR

body2022
ORDER : (1) This Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.76/2018 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Neyveli. (2) The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.76/2018 filed by the respondent herein before the Sub Court, Neyveli. (3) Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows: (4) The revision petitioner/wife married the respondent/husband on 27.11.2014. The respondent/husband filed HMOP.No.64/2015 before the Sub Court, Neyveli for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The only allegation against the revision petitioner/wife in the petition filed by the respondent/husband for divorce is that the revision petitioner/wife was treating him with cruelty and was causing mental agony for the petitioner by her attitude and behaviour when they were living together for a short time. (5) It is further stated that on 20.04.2015, the revision petitioner left the matrimonial home with all the article she brought as Sridhana and refused to come back to live with the respondent/husband. (6) After framing necessary issues, the Trial Court found that the respondent/husband did not prove any of the allegation against the revision petitioner/wife. (7) However, the petition for dissolution of marriage was allowed as the revision petitioner/wife had no objection for grant of divorce and then was irretrievable break down of marriage. The petition filed by the respondent/husband was therefore disposed of in the following lines. Other Language (8) After dissolution of marriage by order dated 13.07.2017, the respondent/husband filed the Suit in O.S.No.76/2018 for recovery of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the revision petitioner/wife as compensation for causing mental agonies and sufferings by the conduct of the revision petitioner. While repeating the allegations which were already made by the respondent/husband in the petition for divorce, the respondent/husband has also made serious allegations against the revision petitioner/wife as if she was having illicit intimacy even before the petition for divorce was filed by him. In para 4 of the plaint, the respondent/husband has stated as follows: Other Language (9) From the reading of the averments made in the plaint, it is seen that the revision petitioner/wife though could have raised these allegations and claimed proper relief in the earlier proceedings, failed to present these allegations which were found in the present Suit. In para 4 of the plaint, the respondent/husband has stated as follows: Other Language (9) From the reading of the averments made in the plaint, it is seen that the revision petitioner/wife though could have raised these allegations and claimed proper relief in the earlier proceedings, failed to present these allegations which were found in the present Suit. It is to be noted that the petition filed by the respondent/husband for divorce was allowed after rendering a finding that the allegations made by the respondent/husband regarding cruelty was not proved by the respondent/husband. However for the same cause, the present Suit is filed claiming damages. (10) It was only on the basis of the consent given by the revision petitioner/wife, the petition was allowed. After making a few more allegations against the revision petitioner/wife, the present Suit is filed for damages. It is to be noted that the averments clearly indicate that the respondent/husband did not refer to any of these allegations even though the allegations was about conduct of revision petitioner/wife which was before the petition for divorce was filed. Though these allegations are relevant to prove cruelty, these allegations were not stated in the petition filed by the respondent/husband for divorce. It is also stated in the plaint, that the revision petitioner/wife has made serious allegations against the respondent/husband in the counter filed by her in HMOP.No.64/2015. The petitioner who did not bother to raise these allegations in the earlier proceedings where these allegations would strengthen his case cannot be permitted to raise the same by way of separate Suit after a finding in the previous proceeding that the respondent had not proved mental cruelty. (11) The allegations appears to be made for the purpose of causing embarassment to the petitioner and to face an unwarranted litigation. The relationship between the parties as husband and wife was terminated by granting a decree for dissolution of marriage. The respondent/husband has come forward with the vexatious Suit out of frustration and vengeance. (12) Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the respondent/husband has failed to prove his case for divorce cannot re-agitate the same allegations for different reliefs and that the Suit filed by the respondent/husband is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. The prayer in the Suit is for damages. (12) Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the respondent/husband has failed to prove his case for divorce cannot re-agitate the same allegations for different reliefs and that the Suit filed by the respondent/husband is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. The prayer in the Suit is for damages. However, the allegations are nothing but an attempt to re litigate the issues which had been considered in the earlier proceeding which had become final by judgment and decree in HMOP.No.64/2015. (13) The respondent/husband could have made all these allegations even in the proceedings for divorce earlier at the relevant point of time. Therefore, this Court also agrees with the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the present Suit is nothing but an attempt to harass the revision petitioner/wife unnecessarily after the dissolution of marriage. (14) The allegations which could have been raised in the earlier proceedings shows that the husband has come forward with the present Suit out of frustration just to harass and cause inconvenience to the wife. Even though, the cause of action for damages is different, it should be noted that the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed on 19.08.2015 and the petitioner who has not stated or mentioned any of the allegation which are made in the present Suit in earlier proceedings has come forward with the present Suit after the disposal of HMOP.No.64/2015. (15) It is to be noted that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized only on 27.11.2014. The respondent/husband himself has admitted that on 20.04.2015 the petitioner/wife has left the matrimonial home and refused to come back to matrimonial home to live with the respondent/husband. Thereafter, in such circumstances, filing the Suit for damages on the ground that the revision petitioner has made false allegations and accusations against the respondent/husband caused mental agony cannot be sustained especially when the respondent's petition was allowed after rendering a finding against the respondent/husband that he did not prove mental agony warranting divorce. (16) This Court is also of the view that the Suit in O.S.No.76/2018 now filed by the respondent/husband before the Sub Court, Neyveli is an abuse process of law and unsustainable. (16) This Court is also of the view that the Suit in O.S.No.76/2018 now filed by the respondent/husband before the Sub Court, Neyveli is an abuse process of law and unsustainable. Since, the respondent has filed the Suit without any bona fide and has made serious allegations which are unwarranted after the dissolution of marriage, this Court is of the view that the revision petitioner should be compensated for the inconvenience caused to her. (17) This Civil Revision Petition is allowed with cost of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only] by directing the respondent/husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the revision petitioner/wife within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.