2011 Supreme(Mad) 3283
2011 (4) LW 428, 2011 (3) MWN(Civil) 363
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. MOHAN RAM & M. DURAISWAMY
Subramanian
Versus
C. Kuppammal
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.3602 & 3603 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided on : 18-07-2011
For the Appellant:Mr. I. Subramanian (Party-in-Person), Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Manoharan, Amicus Curiae.
Unsubstantiated allegations of adultery amount to mental cruelty and can lead to a decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Headnote:
Divorce - Desertion - Hindu Marriage Act - [CRUELTY, DESERTION] - [2005 BOMBAY 180, 1989 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 310, 2002 (5) Law Weekly 250, 2009 (3) CTC 15, 2003 (2) CTC 375, 2005 (1) CTC 215, 1993 (3) Scale 541] - The court discussed the serious allegations of adultery made by the wife against the husband and their impact on the marriage. It concluded that unsubstantiated allegations of adultery amount to mental cruelty and constitute a prima facie failure of the marriage. The court referred to various legal precedents to establish that such allegations, if unproven, constitute mental cruelty and can lead to a decree of divorce.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging that the respondent made false allegations of adultery against him, causing mental agony. The court found that the appellant had not established cruelty and desertion on the part of the respondent and dismissed the petition for divorce, while allowing the petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights filed by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had not proven cruelty and desertion on the part of the respondent and dismissed the petition for divorce, while allowing the petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights filed by the respondent.
Issues: The main issues were the allegations of cruelty and desertion made by the appellant against the respondent, specifically related to the unsubstantiated allegations of adultery.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that unsubstantiated allegations of adultery amount to mental cruelty and constitute a prima facie failure of the marriage, leading to a decree of divorce.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the lower court and allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, granting a decree of divorce to the appellant.
K. MOHAN RAM, J.
1. The appellant in the above appeals is the husband of the respondent. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 18.04.1975 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. On 29.03.1976 a son was born to them. Both of them are employed. On 10.07.1999 their son died.
2. It is the case of the appellant that from August 2005 onwards the respondent started living with her brother in order to give all her retirement benefits to his family, as she was to retire from service on super-annuation on 31.12.2005. Since the respondent refused to come to the matrimonial home, the appellant filed HMOP No.529 of 2006 against the respondent on 02.03.2006 seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights. As the respondent expressed her unwillingness to live with the appellant, the appellant withdrew the OP and the same was dismissed on 18.12.2007. On the same day, the appellant filed OP No.3836 of 2007 seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It is the further case of the appellant that the respondent never cooked meals regularly and the respondent would leave to her brothers' and sisters' house very often and the respondent would make untrue allegations about the character of the appellant to relatives and family friends as an excuse to leave home often and thus the respondent made the life of the appellant miserable and because of such conduct of the respondent, the health of the appellant was affected. She used to abuse the appellant in vulgar and filthy language in the presence of others. The respondent behaved in a rude and uncaring manner towards the son also. On 19.08.2005, the respondent with an intention to give all the retirement benefits to her brothers and sisters, without the consent of the appellant, deserted the appellant without any reasonable cause. The respondent retired from Government Service on 31.12.2005 and the respondent had given all her retirement benefits and the monthly pension to her brothers and sisters. All the efforts taken by the appellant with the help of the family members and friends to bring the respondent back to the matrimonial home proved futile. She lodged a police complaint against the appellant with G-5 All Women Police Station, Ayanavaram. In O.P.No.529 of 2006 filed by the appellant seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights, the respondent filed a counter statement making untrue allegations regarding the character of the appellant and alleged that the appellant had brought one servant maid, by name, Devi, with whom he had illicit intimacy. It was further alleged in the counter statement by the respondent herein that the appellant sometimes used to live at the residence of the servant maid, Devi, and that was the reason why the respondent had to leave the matrimonial home. During counselling, the respondent firmly stated that she has no intention to reunite with the appellant and she openly challenged the appellant in the court premises that she would not allow the appellant to live peacefully. The reckless and untrue allegations made by the respondent and her uncaring attitude has caused inexplicable mental agony due to which the appellant's health got deteriorated and he was mentally disturbed. The respondent had deserted the appellant without any reasonable cause and has caused great mental cruelty by her acts. On the aforesaid grounds, the appellant sought for divorce.
3. In the counter statement filed by the respondent, the respondent herein denied the allegation that she did not care for the appellant and their son. She had stated that as a dutiful wife she did all the household work and never let the appellant and their son starve for food. The respondent would never leave the house or make wild and reckless allegations against the appellant. It is specifically stated in the counter statement that the appellant had illegal relationship with a servant maid, named Devi, who was residing very next to the ICF quarters and because of that lady only,