2008 Supreme(Mad) 1011
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S. JANARTHANARAJA
K. Devika
Versus
K. Kanniappan
C.M.A.(NPD) Nos.1824 and 1825 of 2003 and C.M.P.Nos.11418 and 11419 of 2003
Decided On : 24-03-2008
For the Petitioner:A. Ganesan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:K. Santhakumari, Advocate.
The judgment emphasizes the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce, in line with the Supreme Court decisions.
Headnote:
Divorce - Cruelty - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13(1)(ia)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed for restitution of conjugal rights, alleging ill-treatment and cruelty by the respondent. The respondent sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Family Court granted divorce to the respondent, finding the appellant solely responsible for the disharmony in the marital life and concluding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
Issues: Allegations of cruelty, irretrievable breakdown of marriage, maintenance of children, and property settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, citing the Supreme Court decisions in NAVEEN KOHLI v. NEELU KOHLI and SAMAR GHOSH v. JAYA GHOSH, emphasizing that divorce should be seen as a solution in cases of irreparable breakdown.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the respondent was directed to pay a higher amount towards the maintenance of the children and settle the house property in favor of the children.
K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.
These appeals are filed by the appellant/ wife against the orders of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai dated 19. 2002 made in F.C.O.P.No.1371 of 1995 non-suiting the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights and F.C.O.P.No.216 of 1996 granting the relief of divorce to the respondent on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act by dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent solemnised on 2. 1985.
2. The material facts that are necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows:
The appellant and respondent got married as per the Hindu rites and customs on 2. 1985 at Manimangalam village, Sriperumbudur Taluk. It is the case of the appellant that her life was somewhat happy for the first two years. However, from the date of marriage itself, the respondent demanded scooter and compelled the appellants brother Srinivasan to marry the respondents sister Rani. As both the demands were negatived by the appellant and her family, the respondent and his family members started ill-treating the appellant. After exchange of legal notices, the appellant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Sub-Court, Poonamallee. As the respondent assured to lead a cordial life with the appellant, the said petition was closed. Even after the re-union, the appellant was subjected to torture by the respondent and the members of the family by not allowing the appellant to see her family members. In the meanwhile, a male child was born to the appellant. The appellant was denied proper food and treatment during the period of her pregnancy. The respondents family members made arrangement to get the respondents sisters daughter married to him. The respondents mother and widowed sister had poured kerosene on the appellant with an intention to set ablaze her. But fortunately she escaped and lodged a complaint against the respondent and his family members on 111. 1994 with All Womens Police Station, Avadi. The respondent and her family members were advised by the police to behave properly. The intervention of the Ex.M.L.A. for re-union of the appellant with the respondent also went in vain. On 6. 1995, the appellant was meted out with untold harassment at the hands of the respondent and his family members. She made a complaint in the All Womens Police Station, Avadi. Though the respondent has obtained an anticipatory bail, he has not taken any steps to give the appellant the conjugal right. The respondent totally withdrawn and neglected the appellant from 6. 1995. On that basis, she claimed restitution of conjugal rights.
3. The case of the respondent was that the allegations made against him were totally baseless and are imaginary in nature. The respondent was the only male member, who is having an obligation to look after his mother and widowed sister. The appellant, for the reasons best known to her, developed a hatred attitude towards the mother and sister of the respondent and wanted to have a separate family. The respondent was not obliged to that request. All his advise and persuasion that the destitute mother and sister should not be denied of his care and protection went in vain. That made the appellant to pick up frequent quarrels with him, his mother and sister. The respondent always treated the appellant with love and affection. The appellant in order to coerce and compel the respondent to be under her thumb, had given a false complaint to the police not only accusing the respondent but also his family members for contemplation of second marriage and attempted to murder her. It is the appellant and his brother assaulted the respondents mother on 16. 1995 and a police complaint was lodged by his mother. The respondent has taken all and every step to have a peaceful married life with the appellant as a dutiful husband. But all the efforts were just like that destroyed and denied by the appellant, because of her adamant behaviour. Most par