IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Divorce – Consent of parties is not necessary to declare a marriage dissolved – A dead marriage must be given a decent quietus.
(2) Matrimonial Proceedings – Bar of limitation – Word ‘proceedings’ within meaning of Section 29(3) of Limitation Act, 1963 is to be confined to original proceedings.

JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J.

By the impugned judgment, the High Court has reversed the decree of dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent which is passed under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. We have heard Mr. K.S Mahadevan, learned counsel the appellant and Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The appellant and the respondent were married as per the Hindu rites and customs on 29.08.1999. According to the appellant, there were certain differences between his sister and the respondent's brother, who were married to each other, which led to the appellant's sister returning to her parental house. Further, the case of the appellant is that the respondent left the appellant on 18.01.2000 and returned to her parental home. She did not return home. She stood accused of cruelty and accordingly, the divorce petition was filed on 05.03.2001 seeking dissolution. The Family Court allowed the petition by its decree dated 23.07.2004. An appeal was carried by the respondent before the Madras High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and it was filed on 09.09.2004. According to the appellant, since the period for filing an appeal by the respondent had expired, he re-married on 31.10.2004 on the strength of the decree of dissolution dated 23.07.2004. He was served with the notice in the matter in May, 2005. Respondent, in fact, filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 27.12.2004 and the same is still pending.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. K.S Mahadevan, would submit that the High Court has clearly erred in reversing the judgment of the Family Court. He would submit that this is a case of matrimonial cruelty practised by the respondent. The Trial Court has after considering the evidence rendered a finding to justify the grant of dissolution of the marriage. It is pointed out that there was a strained relationship between the respondent and the appellant's sister. It must be noticed here that the appellant's sister was married to the brother of the respondent on 24.05.1999, prior to the marriage between the appellant and the respondent on 29.08.1999. It is pointed out that on the evidence, finding was rendered by the trial court that strain between the respondent and the appellant's sister had a telling effect on the relationship between the appellant and the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent would threaten to commit suicide. What is more, the learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that though the appellant requested the respondent to come back. But she refused, stating that in view of the fact that she had gone to deliver a child, she needed more time. She had requested for five months. In fact, the father of the respondent passed away on 03.02.2001. It is further contended that the attitude of the respondent is reflected by the admitted fact that the respondent did not file any petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. If she was genuinely interested in coming back and staying with the appellant, she would have done that. It is pointed out further that the findings rendered by the High Court about there not being any strained relationship between the respondent and her sister-in-law is unsustainable. He pointed out the contradictions in the impugned judgment in this regard. He would contrast the finding that there was no such strain with the finding that there was a strained relationship between the families. The respondent was never willing to live with the appellant. The finding of the High Court that the respondent was always ready and willing to rejoin is criticized as being unsustainable on facts. It is pointed out in this regard that the intention to return was not reflected in the pleadings, and it finds expression for the first time in the evidence of the respondent only.

5. It is further contended that the findi