SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(Mad) 363

MADRAS HIGH COURT
RAMASWAMI
Meganatha Nayagar
Versus
Shrimathi Susheela
A.A.O. No. 67 of 1956
Decided On : 13 November, 1956

Advocates Appeared:
A.K. Pavithran and N. Suryanarayana, for Appellant; Govt. Pleader, V.T. Rangaswami Iyengar and T.E. Raghavachari, for Respondent.

The court's discretion in granting leave to present a petition for divorce before three years of marriage is not absolute and must be exercised judicially, taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case, including the principles laid down by the English Court of Appeal in Bowman v. Bowman, (1949) 2 All ER 127.

Headnote:

MATRIMONIAL LAW - DIVORCE - LEAVE TO PRESENT PETITION BEFORE THREE YEARS - GROUNDS OF EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP AND EXCEPTIONAL DEPRAVITY - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - COURT'S DISCRETION - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GRANT OF LEAVE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a Vanniyakula Kshatriya woman, married the respondent, also a Vanniyakula Kshatriya, on 7-7-1955. On the afternoon of the same day, the petitioner's family learned that the respondent had previously entered into a form of marriage with a Harijan woman named Chandramathi and had a son with her. The petitioner and her family left the respondent's house without consummating the marriage. The respondent claimed that he had a love affair with Chandramathi, not a regular marriage, and that the petitioner's father was aware of this before the marriage. He alleged that the marriage was consummated before the petitioner left his house at midnight on the marriage day.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was prima facie evidence of exceptional hardship suffered by the petitioner and exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent. It noted that the respondent had entered into a form of marriage with a Harijan woman and had a son with her, which was a fraud on the petitioner and her family. The court also considered the fact that the respondent had allegedly consummated the marriage before the petitioner left his house, which was a further hardship on her.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had suffered exceptional hardship and the respondent had committed exceptional depravity, justifying the grant of leave to present a petition for divorce before three years of marriage. 2. Whether the court had properly exercised its discretion in granting leave to present the petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the terms "exceptional hardship" and "exceptional depravity" are not defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and that each case must be decided on its own merits. The court considered the principles laid down by the English Court of Appeal in Bowman v. Bowman, (1949) 2 All ER 127, and other English authorities, and held that the facts of the case disclosed prima facie sufficient material for the learned Principal City Civil Judge to have exercised his discretion in the manner in which he had exercised.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court's decision to grant leave to present the petition for divorce before three years of marriage.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal preferred against the order made by the learned Principal City Civil Judge of Madras in C. M. P. No. 655 of 1955 in O. P. No. 192 of 1955.

2. The facts are :- The petitioner, Srimathi Susheela, is the only daughter of a well-to-do Vanniakula Kshatriya by name Sri P.M. Manthiappa Nayagar, residing at No. 19, Egmore High Road, Madras. The respondent, Sri V.B. Meganatha Nayagar, is the only son of another well-to-do Vanniyakula Kshatriya, Sri Bhoopathi Nayagar residing at Mohana Vilas, No. 5, Konnur High Road, Madras, There is no dispute that a marriage was arranged and took place between the petitioner and the respondent on the forenoon of 7-7-1955.

3. It is the case for the petitioner that on the afternoon of 7-7-1955 the brides party came to know that this respondent has gone through a form of marriage with a Harijan girl by name Chandramathi and that a son was born to this respondent by that Chandramathi. This petitioners case is that on coming to know of this shocking fact fraudulently kept out of her knowledge herself and her relatives came away without the marriage being consummated. On the other hand, the case for this respondent is that there was a love affair and not a regular marriage between himself and Chandramathi who has borne him a son and that this fact was taken to the notice of the petitioners father before marriage and that notwithstanding that, the marriage took place by consent of parties and that this marriage was consummated before the petitioner and her party left his house at midnight of the marriage day.

4. The relevant documents which have to be taken into consideration are three in number. Ex. B-1, runs as follows :-

This memorandum of agreement, executed at Madras, this 22nd day of December 1952, between Meganathan, son of M. Bhoopathy Naicker, of the age of 25 years, and residing at No. 74, Sachidanandham Pillai St., Perambur Barracks, Madras, and Chandramathi, daughter of Raghavalu Naidu, Harijan of the age of 20 years and residing at No. 7, Mangalapuram, Perambur Barracks, Madras, witnesseth as follows :-

Whereas we have been in close intimacy for the past two months, resulting in the happy development of conjugal love and affection between us rendering it possible for us to be husband and wife, loving each other to the last. Hence we hereby solemnly declare and state that the children born to us will be legitimate children, having the legal right to inherit all our movable and immovable properties belonging to both of us, in witness whereof, the parties hereto have set their hands on the day and year first above written in the Sub-Registrar Office, Madras.........

5. Ex. B-2 is a so-called deed of divorce between Chandramathi and the respondent, which runs as follows :-

".......Deed of Divorce made this 12th day of July 1955, between (1) Sri M.M. Meganathan, son of M. Bhoopathi, Vanniar by caste, aged 28 years, residing at No. 5, Konnur High Road, Ramalingapuram, Madras-12 and (2) Chandramathi, daughter of Raghavalu, Harijan by caste, aged 24 years, residing along with No. 1 on the above-mentioned address, witnesseth:

Whereas we lived harmoniously as husband and wife for the past three years, loving each other as per the agreement of marriage effected between us and registered on the 23rd December 1952, in the Office of the Sub-Registrar of Madras-Chingleput;

Now owing to some differences that occurred between us, we do not like to be as husband and wife, and also believe that we could not have a happy and peaceful life. Hence we both desire to effect a deed of divorce between us.

Now by this deed of divorce we sever each other from our marriage tie and we mutually agree that each of us has no claim over the other either in property or in person. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands to this deed of divorce, voluntarily and of our free will.........."

6. Ex. B-3 is an extract from the Birth Register kept by the Madras Corporation of Madras which has been fi



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top