High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
D. Nagappan
Versus
T. Virgin Rani
C.M.A. Nos.2871 & 2872 of 2004
Decided on : 15-04-2009
Cruelty - Divorce - Indian Divorce Act - Section 22 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the allegations of cruelty and desertion by the wife, the baseless allegation of adultery, and the intention of the wife not to return to the matrimonial home. The court also highlighted the importance of examining the facts in each case before granting the prayer for divorce or restitution of conjugal rights.
Fact of the Case:
The husband filed for divorce and the wife filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The court found that the wife had deserted the matrimonial home and made baseless allegations of adultery, indicating cruelty. The court also found that the wife's intention not to return to the matrimonial home was evident from her actions, and her petition for restitution of conjugal rights was not bona fide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband had proved desertion and cruelty by the wife, and that the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was not genuine.
Issues: Allegations of cruelty and desertion by the wife, baseless allegation of adultery, intention of the wife not to return to the matrimonial home, and the genuineness of the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the husband had proved desertion and cruelty by the wife, and that the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was not genuine. The court also emphasized the importance of independently examining the facts in each case before granting the prayer for divorce or restitution of conjugal rights.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the Family Court in both civil miscellaneous appeals were set aside, and both appeals were allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.
Prabha Sridevan, J.
Both these appeals have been filed by the husband. The Family Court dismissed
F.C.O.P. No.674 of 1997 filed by the husband for divorce and allowed F.C.O.P. No.623 of 1995 filed by the wife, the respondent herein, for restitution of conjugal rights. The parties will be referred to as appellant and respondent, which is how they are arrayed in these appeals, so that there may be consistency in reference.
2. F.C.O.P. No.623 of 1995 was filed first and therefore, we will look at the pleadings therein.
The couple got married in a Roman Catholic Church in Kanyakumari on 11. 1989. According to the respondent, since she was the only daughter of her parents, her parents performed the marriage lavishly and bore the entire expenses. She is a Physics Graduate and had completed her P.G. Diploma Course in Computer Science. The appellant gave her to understand that he was qualified as an Engineer working in the Railways. To her shock, she found that he was only a Head Draftsman. Her parents questioned him as to why he uttered falsehood, but since the marriage preparations were at an advanced stage, they did not cancel the marriage. After the marriage, they resided together as husband and wife in Perambur. The appellant allegedly behaved in a rude and crude manner and used to ill-treat the respondent to appease his mother. It is stated that the appellants mother was a cruel lady. But, inspite of all this cruel treatment, the respondent was carrying on as a dutiful wife. The respondent became pregnant. The delivery was complicated and the female child died. The appellant never cared to take her back to Chennai and after repeated requests, he reluctantly took her back to Chennai. The appellant was very friendly with one Viswanathan. The respondent did not like this and when she pointed this out to him, he abused her in unprintable language saying she should not question his relationship with Viswanathan and if she was unhappy, she could go back to her parents house. Then, she conceived her second baby. A female child was born on 37. 1991, but that child also died. Due to prolonged medical treatment, the respondent suffered mental and physical agony. The appellants attitude towards her was very bad and he did not pay her any care or attention and it was only the respondents parents and brothers who gave her necessary support. When it was time to return to Chennai, she informed the appellant over telephone, when her parents took her to Chennai to her matrimonial home, they found the house locked. He had vacated the house on the previous midnight only with the motive of putting her to hardship. Therefore, the respondent stayed with her elder brother at Chennai. Since her efforts to find out his place of residence were unsuccessful, her brother went to his office, but on seeing her brother, the appellant left the office. After repeated efforts, they found out his address at Periyar Nagar and after much persuasion, he agreed to live with the respondent. The appellants attitude towards the respondent became worse and worse and he also ill-treated her by demanding additional dowry for starting a rubber business with Viswanathan. Her pleas that he should not insist on further dowry fell on deaf ears and he also said that unless and until she brought the additional dowry, there would not be a peaceful marital life. Then he took to the old habit of spending time with his friends in clubs and other places. The respondent again conceived for the third time. This time, the appellant suggested that she should go to her parents house at Nagercoil to have her parents support, to which the respondent agreed. This time a male child was born. The entire medical expenses were born only by her parents. Even thereafter, he did not agree to take her back. The appellant was not agreeable to her joining him because she was complaining that his mother was treating her cruelly. Every time she requested him to take her back, he would avoid it o
7. A. Viswanathan vs. G. Lakshmi @ Seetha 2007 (2) L.W. 902
13. Sarada vs. V. Satyamurthi (2001) 1 M.L.J. 224
15. Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. Manju Sharma 2009 (3) SCALE 425
4. A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur (2005) 2 S.C.C. 22
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.