High Court of Judicature at Madras
ELIPE DHARMA RAO & M. VENUGOPAL
U. Sree
Versus
U. Srinivas
C.M.A.Nos.1656 & 1657 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2010
Decided On : 26-09-2011
The court dismissed the wife's appeal for restitution of conjugal rights and upheld the husband's petition for divorce, finding that the wife's conduct amounted to mental cruelty. The court found that the wife had caused mental anguish and suffering to the husband by constantly criticizing his lifestyle, daily routine, and likes and dislikes, and by interfering in his music sessions. The court also found that the wife had made false and scandalous allegations against the husband, which further contributed to the breakdown of the marriage. The court held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that there was no chance of reconciliation between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, while the respondent/husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(1-a), Sections 26 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife's conduct amounted to mental cruelty and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The court dismissed the wife's appeal for restitution of conjugal rights and upheld the husband's petition for divorce.
Issues: Whether the wife's conduct amounted to mental cruelty. Whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the wife's conduct amounted to mental cruelty and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The court relied on the following principles: * Mental cruelty is a course of conduct that causes mental anguish and suffering to the other spouse. * Mental cruelty can include verbal abuse, insults, and constant criticism. * Mental cruelty can also include interference in the other spouse's daily routine and activities. * Mental cruelty can lead to the breakdown of a marriage. * A marriage is irretrievably broken down when there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the wife's appeal for restitution of conjugal rights and upheld the husband's petition for divorce.
M.VENUGOPAL,J.
1. The Appellant/Wifehas preferred these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals as against the Common Order dated 22.12.2009 in F.C.O.P.Nos.568/1997 and 805/1998 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai.
2. The Appellant/Wife has filed F.C.O.P.No.568 of 1997 [under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955] on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai praying for restitution of conjugal rights.
3. The Respondent/Husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.805 of 1998 [under Section 13 (1)(i-a), Sections 26 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984] on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai praying for dissolution of marriage that took place between him and the Appellant/Wife on 27.05.1994 at Thirupathi.
4. Before the trial Court, O.P.Nos.568/1997 and 805/1998 were tried jointly and common evidence was recorded. On the side of the Appellant/Wife, witness P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.14 were marked. On the side of Respondent/Husband, witness R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.11 were marked.
5. The trial Court, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and after scrutinising the same, had resultantly dismissed the relief of restitution of conjugal rights in F.C.O.P.No.568 of 1997 filed by the Appellant/Wife without costs and allowed F.C.O.P.No.805 of 1998 filed by the Respondent/Husband, by dissolving the marriage between the parties that took place on 27.05.1994 at Thirupathi.
6. Being dissatisfied against the Common Order dated 22.12.2009 in F.C.O.P.Nos.568/1997 and 805/1998, the Appellant/ Wife had preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals before this Court as an aggrieved person.
7. Facts in O.P.No.568 of 1997:
(a)The Appellant/Wife in her Petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act had averred that her marriage with the Respondent/Husband took place on 27.05.1994 in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies prevalent in Telugu communities living in Andra Pradesh and that the marriage was an arranged one. After marriage, the parties lived together at Maruthi Nilayam, 12-A, Venkateswara Street, Dhanalakshmi Colony, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026 till 03.01.1996, the date on which she was taken by her father-in-law to her parents house. They lived in the aforesaid address along with her husband's parents, married sister with her husband and younger unmarried brother and sister in a joint family after marriage. On 19.11.1994 she was sent to her parents house for medical check up and treatment. Again she was brought back by her mother-in-law on 26.01.1995 from her parents house to Chennai and she lived in Chennai with the Respondent upto 12.03.1995, when she was sent back for delivery to her parents house. The Respondent/Husband visiting the Appellant/Wife on 27.05.1995 to celebrate their first wedding anniversary. Again, the Respondent/Husband visited on 30.05.1995, when she delivered a male child. After delivery, on 13th day, Respondent/Husband came with his family members to the Appellant/Wife's parents house where she was staying after delivery. The Respondent/Husband visited the Appellant in August and September 1995 at her house at Hyderabad. She came back to Chennai on 04.10.1995 after her delivery and from then onwards she was living with the Respondent/Husband till 03.01.1996 together with the child.
(b). The Appellant/Wife was always quite accommodative, adjusting and gave respect to Respondent/Husband's family members, fellow musicians and senior members of her husband's profession. She never detested the visitors nor troubled the nest for any matters. She was taken by her father-in-law on 03.01.1996 to her parents house without her consent and thereafter, the Respondent/Husband had not visited her. From 03.01.1996, the Respondent/Husband without any reasonable excuse and with a view to leave the matrimonial home, withdrew from the society of the Appellant/Wife. Her pa
AI
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.