Back
High Court Of Delhi
ELIZABETH SKARIAH - Appellant
Versus
ABY SKARIAH - Respondent
Suit 284 of 2000
Decided On : 12/13/2001
Marriage - Permanent Injunction - Indian Divorce Act, Section 32
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a Christian woman, sought a permanent injunction to prevent her husband from contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of their marriage. She alleged financial exploitation and pressure to remit money, and cited the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights as a ploy to lull her into complacency while planning a second marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's apprehension of the husband's intention to contract a second marriage was justified, especially considering the withdrawal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the letter received from the plaintiff's local advocate confirming the husband's plan.
Issues: The issues revolved around the husband's conduct, financial exploitation, and the sanctity of marriage, particularly in the context of the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the plaintiff's apprehension of his intention to contract a second marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the value of marital rights and the need to preserve the sanctity of marriage. It highlighted that divorce should not be easily obtainable and that a spouse cannot force the other to seek divorce through cruelty or financial demands. The withdrawal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the letter from the plaintiff's advocate justified the grant of the permanent injunction.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit, permanently restraining the husband from contracting a second marriage without obtaining a legal and valid divorce from the plaintiff.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a suit for a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the marriage with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a Christian woman married to the defendant, and the suit seeks to restrain the defendant from remarrying without obtaining a valid divorce (!) .
The marriage was solemnized on 21.12.1994 and was an arranged marriage. The plaintiff, originally from Kerala but domiciled in Delhi, was led to believe that the defendant was gainfully employed, but it was later found that he was dependent on his parents and not supporting the marriage financially (!) (!) .
The plaintiff remitted significant amounts of money to the defendant for his support and other expenses, but faced harsh treatment, insults, and reckless demands for money. The defendant and his family exerted pressure on the plaintiff to raise additional funds, including threats of divorce and remarriage (!) (!) .
The defendant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which was viewed as a tactic to lull the plaintiff into complacency while planning a second marriage. The plaintiff's apprehension of the defendant's intention to remarry was justified, especially considering the withdrawal of the petition and correspondence from the defendant’s advocate confirming his plans (!) (!) .
Despite being served with summons, the defendant did not contest the proceedings and the case was proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff provided evidence including affidavits, photographs, and official documents to substantiate her claims (!) (!) .
The court emphasized the importance of marital rights and the sanctity of marriage, asserting that divorce should not be easily obtainable. It highlighted that a spouse cannot unilaterally dissolve the marriage through cruelty or financial demands, and that allegations sufficient to dissolve the marriage must be proven (!) (!) .
The court found that the withdrawal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the letter from the plaintiff’s advocate justified the relief sought. The court decreed the suit, permanently restraining the defendant from contracting a second marriage without obtaining a lawful and valid divorce from the plaintiff (!) (!) .
The final judgment underscores the principle that marriage is a valuable institution that should be preserved, and that the law requires strict proof and valid grounds for divorce. It also stresses that the sanctity of marriage and the vows taken by the parties must be maintained, and that divorce should not be granted lightly or as a result of undue pressure or misconduct (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.
( 1 ) THIS is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 from contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his marriage with the plaintiff herein and also restraining the defendant nos. 2 to 5 from taking any steps in any manner in connection with or in furtherance of the design of the said second marriage of defendant no. 1 or in any way executing or advancing the same or permitting or conniving at it.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff is Christian by religion. Though she hails from Kerala but since childhood is domiciled in delhi. She is the daughter of Pastor (Preacher) T Samuel, who is attached to the United Pentecostal Church, Green park, New Delhi for the last over thirty five years. Defendant no. 1 is the son of defendant nos. 2 and 3, while defendant no. 4 is the sister of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 5 is the husband of defendant no. 4. The marriage of the plaintiff with defendant no. 1 was solemnised on 21. 12. 1994. It was an arranged marriage.
( 3 ) IT was told to the plaintiff s parents that defendant no. 1 was a Commerce graduate and gainfully employed. Soon after the marriage, she discovered that the defendant no. 1 was not gainfully employed to support a matrimonial home. He was entirely dependent on defendants no. 2 and 3. The said defendants looked up to the plaintiff being employed in Saudi Arabia as milch-cow to feed and to sustain them. The plaintiff used to send between Rs. 10-15000. 00 per month to defendant no. 1 so that in the very first year of her marriage approximately Rs. 2 lakh was remitted to defendant no. 1 through normal banking channels. During the short sojourns the plaintiff was subjected to harsh treatment and insulted in coarse and abusive language if she resisted reckless demands on her earnings and savings.
( 4 ) IT is further averred that while in Najaran, defendant no. 1 informed the plaintiff that he had got a job but as he had to travel long distances so he needs money to buy a motorcycle. The plaintiff sent rs. 40,000/ -. These demands kept being repeated one after other on one pretext or the other. Defendant no. l in connivance with and prodded by defendant nos. 2 to 5 during one of her visits to India on vacation started putting pressure on the plaintiff to remit/raise Rs. 1 lac so that the said plot of land can be purchased back from defendant no. 4. The plaintiff was threatened that if she did not raise/remit this money, she would be faced with divorce proceedings. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 would unabashedly announce to the plaintiff that they would re-marry their son.
( 5 ) ON return to India, she started living with the defendants. Defendant nos. 2 to 5 again began to make her life miserable. Defendant no. 1 cold shouldered by defendant nos. 2 to 5 started persuading the plaintiff to move to Delhi so that not only the plaintiff but also the defendant no. 1 can go with her and both can find a job. The plaintiff and defendant no. 1 then shifted to Delhi and for a few months lived with plaintiff s parents. The plaintiff was lucky to get a job as a Staff Nurse in a government hospital where she is working now. Defendant no. 1 was flooded with letters from defendant nos. 2 to 5 and whenever he would get a letter he would start demanding money from the plaintiff showing indifference and even becoming violent towards the plaintiff. On on about 18. 12. 1999, the plaintiff received summons from the family Court in Ernakulam with petition Section 32 of the indian Divorce Act filed by defendant no. 1 for restitution of conjugal rights. She made inquiries with friends and local acquaintances and has come to know that defendant no. 1 in connivance with defendant nos. 2 to 5 is planning to give a practical shape to his frequent threats of remarriage. The Local Advocate engaged to represent the plaintiff in the Family court has also confirmed that defendant is seeking a remarriage and that the petition for conjugal rights was only a placebo device to lull the
AI
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
