Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, S. ABDUL NAZEER, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Mangayakarasi – Appellant
Versus
M. Yuvaraj – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 1912-1913 of 2020 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 2704-2705 of 2019)
Decided on : 03-03-2020
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 9 and 13 – Reversal of order for restitution of conjugal rights and marriage between parties dissolved by High Court – In an appropriate case unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such other allegation has been made and husband and his family members are exposed to criminal litigation and ultimately if it is found that such allegation is unwarranted and without basis and if that act of wife itself forms basis for husband to allege that mental cruelty has been inflicted on him, certainly, in such circumstance if a petition for dissolution of marriage is filed on that ground and evidence is tendered before original court to allege mental cruelty it could well be appreciated for the purpose of dissolving marriage on that ground – Though a criminal complaint had been lodged by wife and husband has been acquitted in said proceedings the basis on which husband had approached Trial Court is not of alleging mental cruelty in that regard but with regard to her intemperate behaviour regarding which both courts below on appreciation of evidence had arrived at the conclusion that same was not proved – Very nature of substantial questions of law framed by High Court is not justified and conclusion reached is also not sustainable – Judgment of High Court set aside. (Paras 14 to 18)
Facts of the Case:
Husband initiated the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage. The wife on the other hand initiated petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. High Court has through the impugned judgment dated 20.07.2018 allowed the appeals, set aside the order for restitution of conjugal rights and dissolved the marriage between the parties herein. It is in that light the appellant-wife is before this Court in these appeals.
Findings of the Court:
In a matter where the differences between the parties are not of such magnitude and is in the nature of the usual wear and tear of marital life, the future of the child and her marital prospects are also to be kept in view, and in such circumstance the dissolution of marriage merely because they have been litigating and they have been residing separately for quite some time would not be justified in present facts, more particularly when the restitution of conjugal rights was also considered simultaneously.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. Bopanna, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is before this Court assailing the judgment dated 20.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CMSA Nos. 23 & 24 of 2016. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. Since the rank of parties was different in the various proceedings as both the parties had initiated proceedings against each other, for the sake of convenience and clarity the appellant herein would be referred to as 'wife' and the respondent herein would be referred to as 'husband' wherever the context so admits.
3. The husband initiated the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage. The wife on the other hand initiated the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The respective petitions registered as H.M.O.P No. 13/2010 (old No.532/2007) and H.M.O.P No.27/2008 were clubbed and the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi by the judgment dated 26.11.2010 dismissed the petition filed by the husband and allowed the petition filed by the wife. The husband claiming to be aggrieved by the said judgment preferred the appeals in CMA No.90/2011 and 71/2011 before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, namely, the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having considered the matter, dismissed the appeals filed by the husband. The husband, therefore, filed the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CMSA Nos.23 & 24 of 2016. The High Court has through the impugned judgment dated 20.07.2018 allowed the appeals, set aside the order for restitution of conjugal rights and dissolved the marriage between the parties herein. It is in that light the appellant-wife is before this Court in these appeals.
4. The undisputed position is that the marriage of the parties was solemnised on 08.04.2005 which in fact was after the parties had fallen in love with each other. As per the averments, the wife is elder to the husband by six to seven years. The parties also have a female child born on 03.01.2007. During the subsistence of the marriage certain differences cropped up between the parties. The husband alleged that the wife was of quarrelsome character and used filthy language in the presence of relatives and friends and also that she had gone to the college where the husband was employed and had used bad language in the presence of the students which had caused insult to him. The husband, therefore, claiming that he belongs to a respectable family and cannot tolerate such behaviour of the wife got issued a legal notice dated 07.12.2006 which was not responded to by the wife. The husband therefore filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act in H.M.O.P No.65/2007 seeking dissolution of marriage. The husband contends that the wife appeared before the Trial Court and on the assurances put forth by her of leading a normal married life the petition was not pressed further. The husband alleges that merely about five days thereafter the wife went to the college and abused him and also left the marital home on 12.04.2007. In that background on the very allegations which had been made in the first instance, the petition seeking dissolution of marriage in H.M.O.P No. 13/2010 (old No.532/2007) was filed.
5. The wife who appeared and filed objection statement disputed the allegations of the husband. The factual aspects with regard to the qualification of the husband at the time of the marriage and his employment were also disputed. It was contended by her that after marriage they resided together at Sathiyamangalam up to the year 2005 and thereafter at Saravanampatti till December, 2006. It was contended that the distance between the hometown of the parents of the husband and the said places referred to is more than 120 kms and travelling the said distance was difficult. Hence the allegation of insulting them is not true. Subsequ
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
