Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2049 (MAD)

K. Balasubramanian @ Murugan v. Velammal

2024-08-22

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, P.VELMURUGAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : P. Velmurugan, J. [PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the order and decretal order made in H.M.O.P.No.423 of 2014, dated 17.6.2015, on the file of Family Court, Tirunelveli.] This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order and decretal order made in H.M.O.P.No.423 of 2014, dated 17.6.2015, on the file of Family Court, Tirunelveli. 2. The appellant is the husband and respondent is the wife. The husband filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Tirunelveli in H.M.O.P.No.423 of 2014, on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court, after enquiry/trial, dismissed the application filed by the husband for divorce and challenging the said fair and decretal orders, now the husband has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. Though notice was served on the respondent and name prinited in the cause-list, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent either in person or through counsel. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/husband and perused the materials placed before this Court. 5. The marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 15.7.2012 and thereafter, according to the appellant, both the appellant and respondent lived together only for thirty days and thereafter, the respondent/wife left the matrimonial home without any valid reason and also she has not discharged her duty as a dutiful wife and she had caused mental cruelty since she left the matrimonial home within thirty days from the date of marriage and even the marriage was also not consummated and therefore the appellant filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Tirunelveli. Depsite the appellant took all his earnest efforts, he could not pacify the wife and she has voluntarily deserted the appellant and hence, he was constrained to file a divorce petition before the Family Court, Tirunelveli, after waiting for long days. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the marriage was not consummated as the wife left the matrimonial home without valid reasons. The wife made allegations of dowry demand and there is no material to show that the appellant/husband demanded dowry. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the marriage was not consummated as the wife left the matrimonial home without valid reasons. The wife made allegations of dowry demand and there is no material to show that the appellant/husband demanded dowry. The Family Court failed to consider the fact that the wife left the matrimonial home and made false allegation of demand of dowry, but she resisted to grant divorce to the appellant, who is before this Court. 7. On a perusal of the order of the Family Court, it has elaborately discussed the allegation levelled in the petition and counter and evidence let in by both the parties and came to the conclusion that the appellant has not proved the allegations in the petition. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 would show that the marriage is admitted and also they lived together for thirty days which is also admitted. Though the appellant would submit that the wife left the matrimonial home and had caused mental cruelty and also made false allegation of demand of dowry, however, when the respondent was examined as R.W.1, she has clearly stated that she has happily lived with the husband and she also like her husband and the husband had only driven her away from the matrimonial home and only the appellant is fighting with the wife and not willing to live with her. But the wife is willing to live with him. Except P.W.1, on the side of the appellant/husband, no other witness was examined and he has not proved the allegations levelled in the petition through any independent witness. Though normally in matrimonial matters, no independent witness can be expected, it depends upon the allegations levelled against them. Further, except marriage invitation, no other document was marked by the appellant and the appellant has not proved his case as alleged in the divorce petition and has also not examined any other independent witness. Therefore, considering the materials available before the Family Court, the Family Court was not satisfied with the allegations levelled by the appellant and came to the conclusion that the same were not proved in the manner known to law. Therefore the divorce petition was dismissed. 8. Therefore, considering the materials available before the Family Court, the Family Court was not satisfied with the allegations levelled by the appellant and came to the conclusion that the same were not proved in the manner known to law. Therefore the divorce petition was dismissed. 8. This Court has carefully gone through the entire materials produced before this Court, petition filed by the husband and counter filed by the respondent, evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 and this Court, while re-appreciating the evidence, does not find any materials to grant divorce and the appellant who approached the Court, has to prove his case and allegations in the Petition by producing oral and documentary evidence and also the fact that the marriage was not consummated. However, no materials whatsoever has been placed to prove the other allegations and the appellant has also failed to prove the same by producing oral or documentary evidence and hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings rendered by the Family Court and as such, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. Considering the relationship of the parties, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.