Back
Supreme Court of India
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
U. Sree
Versus
U. Srinivas
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8927-8928 OF 2012 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 37449-37450 of 2012 Arising out of C.C.Nos.5877-5878/2012]
Decided On : 11-12-2012
Permanent Alimony- Determination of -The respondent husband himself asserted that he had earned name and fame in the world of music and had been performing concerts in various parts of India and abroad- Regard being had to the status of the husband, the social strata to which the parties belong held appropriate to fix the permanent alimony at Rs 50 lacs (Para 34)
Facts of the Case :
Suit was filed by appellant wife herein in the instant case for restitution of conjugal rights. Respondent husband filed suit for dissolution of marriage, custody of the child and return of jewellery and other items. Family Judge jointly tried both the cases and, dismissed the application for restitution of conjugal rights preferred by wife and allowed the petition of the husband for dissolution of marriage. Appeals thereagainst were Dismissed by Division Bench.However Division Bench apart from concurring with the grant of permanent alimony directed the respondent-husband to pay a sum of maintenance amounting to Rs.12,500/- to the appellant-wife and her son.
B. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Instantly husband clearly deposed about the constant and consistent ill-treatment meted out to him by the wife inasmuch as she had shown her immense dislike to his "sadhna" in music and had exhibited total indifference and, in a way, contempt to the tradition of teacher and disciple. Appellant had not shown the slightest concern for the public image of her husband on many an occasion by putting him in a situation of embarrassment leading to humiliation. She had made wild allegations about the conspiracy in the family of her husband to get him re-married for the greed of dowry and there was no iota of evidence on record to substantiate the same. This, in fact, was an aspersion not only on the character of the husband but also a maladroit effort to malign the reputation of the family. Family Judge as well as High Court clearly analysed the evidence and recorded a finding that wife had treated the husband with mental cruelty.Husband had proved his case of mental cruelty which was the foundation for seeking divorce. Hence despite dislodging the finding of desertion, held that the respondent husband had rightly been granted a decree of divorce.
Result : Appeals dismissed
Judgment :-
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant-wife instituted F.C.O.P. No. 568 of 1997 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act’) in the Principal Family Court, Chennai for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent-husband filed F.C.O.P. No. 805 of 1998 under Sections 13(1)(i-a), 26 and 27 of the Act read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 praying for dissolution of marriage, custody of the child and return of jewellery and other items. The learned Family Judge jointly tried both the cases and, on the basis of the evidence brought on record, dismissed the application for restitution of conjugal rights preferred by the wife and allowed the petition of the husband for dissolution of marriage and held that the child would remain in the custody of the mother on the principle that welfare of the child is paramount, and further the husband was not entitled to return of jewels or any other item from the wife in the absence of any cogent evidence in that regard. The learned Family Judge, while passing the decree for dissolution of marriage, directed to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lacs each to the wife and her minor son within a month.
3. Being dissatisfied by the common order, the appellant-wife preferred C.M.A. No. 1656 of 2010 and C.M.A. No. 1657 of 2010 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras and the Division Bench concurred with the conclusion as regards the decree of dissolution of marriage as a consequence of which both the appeals had to meet the fate of dismissal. However, the Bench, apart from concurring with the grant of permanent alimony, directed the respondent-husband to pay a sum of maintenance amounting to Rs.12,500/- to the appellant-wife and her son from the date of order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad till the date of the order passed by the High Court. Hence, the present two appeals have been preferred by special leave assailing the common judgment passed by the High Court in both the appeals.
4. The facts requisite to be stated for adjudication of the appeals are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 19.11.1994 at Tirupathi according to Hindu rites and customs. After entering into wedlock, they lived together at Vadapalani, Chennai. As tradition would warrant, she went to her parental home for delivery where a male child was born on 30th of May, 1995. The respondent celebrated the child’s birth in his in-law’s house and thereafter, the wife stayed with her parents for sometime. She returned to Chennai on 4.10.1995 and there she lived with her husband till 3.1.1996. The case of the wife in her application for restitution of marriage is that on 3.1.1996, her father-in-law, without her consent, took her to her parental home and, thereafter, the husband without any justifiable reason withdrew from her society. All efforts made by her as well as by her parents to discuss with her husband and his family members to find out a solution went in vain. In this backdrop, a prayer was made for restitution of conjugal rights.
5. The husband resisted the aforesaid stand contending, inter alia, that there was total incompatibility in the marital relationship inasmuch as she found fault with his life style, his daily routine, his likes and dislikes and picked up quarrels on trivial issues. She threw tantrums only with the exclusive purpose that she should dominate the relationship and have her own way. At the time of practising and learning music in the presence of his father, who was also his “Guru”, she hurled abuses and screamed which invariably followed with arguments and quarrels. Though she was expected, as per the customs, to show respect towards elders and to the senior artists, yet, throwing all traditional values to the wind, she would walk away by creating a scene to his utter embarrassment. His public image was totally ruined and reputation was mutilated. It was also alleged that she called her pare
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
