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

2017 Supreme(Mad) 2093

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, JJ.
Dr. Manimaran - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Nalini- Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1364 and 1365 of 2017
Decided On : 06-09-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, Senior Advocate , Mr. K. Sakthivel
For the Respondent: Ms. Babitha Sunil

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 161 - Hindu Marriage Act,1955 - Section 9 and 13(i-a) Case of appellant, as could be unfolded from averments filed by him is that when appellant and respondent were pursuing their Medical Degree in Medical College , they were in love with each other - Subsequently, appellant and respondent got married and it was registered in office of the Sub-Registrar - Thereafter, appellant wanted to perform a formal marriage in presence of his parents, but the respondent disagreed and got agitated by stating that parents of appellant could not do anything as marriage has already taken place - However, the appellant convinced the respondent and a formal marriage was performed - According to the appellant, after marriage, matrimonial home was set up - Appellant got appointed to Government Medical Service and was posted in Primary Health Centre where the respondent also started her medical practice - Respondent gave birth to a male child - After respondent returned to matrimonial home, appellant expressed his intention to continue his higher studies and to prepare for competitive examination after his regular working hours - Though appellant was earning out of his employment in government service, respondent wanted him to concentrate in private practice ignoring his higher studies and thereby the respondent wanted to make huge money - Such attitude of respondent, according to appellant, was not to his liking - In fact, the respondent discouraged appellant from pursuing his higher studies and also used abusive words about his earning capacity - Such an attitude on the part of the respondent has resulted in loss of mental peace and resultantly, the appellant could not succeed in the competitive examination - In such a situation, appellant had taken leave from his employment, kept himself away from respondent and prepared for the competitive examination and ultimately he succeeded in securing 19th rank in the examination and got selected – Held, In these circumstances, court find that appeal is well founded and deserves to be allowed – Court unequivocally find that respondent wife had filed a false criminal complaint and even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty - In the present case also, as court have held respondent has given a false complaint against the appellant which was intended to humiliate and harass him - Respondent also failed to reiterate complaint given by her under Ex.P4 in the Petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights - It is needless to mention that the above said OP No. 3964 was filed by respondent subsequent to complaint given by her under Ex.P4, however, she has not disclosed it in Petition filed by her in OP No. 3964 - Even otherwise, respondent, in her cross-examination has admitted that if appellant would not have filed the OP No. 2804 for dissolution of the marriage, she would not have given complaint under Ex.P4 - This only shows ill intention on part of respondent to put appellant behind bars and also to humilate and harass him Such act on the part of respondent would definitely comes within meaning and definition of ‘cruelty’- In such view of the matter, court hold that appellant has succeeded in establishing that he was subjected to matrimonial cruelty inflicted by respondent towards him and consequently, Order and Decree passed by Court below deserves to be set aside - In result, court set aside Order and Decree made in OP Nos. 2804 and 3964 on the file of II Additional Principal Family Court, Resultantly, O.P. No. 2504 filed by appellant/husband for dissolution of marriage is allowed and O.P. No. 3964 filed by respondent/wife for restitution of conjugal rights is dismissed - Consequently, both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBBIAH, J

1. Both these appeals arise out of a common Order dated 04.03.2017 passed by the learned II Additional Principal Judge, Chennai in OP Nos. 2804 of 2012 and 3964 of 2012. By the said Order dated 04.03.2017, the Family Court dismissed OP No. 2804 of 2012 filed by the husband/appellant under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of The Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage, while allowing the OP No. 3964 of 2012 filed by the wife/respondent herein under Section 9 of the said Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, both these appeals are taken up together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as appellant and respondent as per their litigative status in this appeal.

3. The case of the appellant, as could be unfolded from the averments made in OP No. 2804 of 2012 filed by him under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of The Hindu Marriage Act, is that when the appellant and the respondent were pursuing their Medical Degree in Chengalpet Medical College in the year 1997, they were in love with each other. Subsequently, the appellant and the respondent got married on 03.06.1999 and it was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Perambur. Thereafter, the appellant wanted to perform a formal marriage in the presence of his parents, but the respondent disagreed and got agitated by stating that the parents of the appellant could not do anything as the marriage has already taken place. However, the appellant convinced the respondent and a formal marriage was performed on 28.11.1999. According to the appellant, after the marriage, the matrimonial home was set up at No.30, Malayan Street, Tenkasi. In the year 1999, the appellant got appointed to Government Medical Service and was posted in Tenkasi Primary Health Centre where the respondent also started her medical practice. On 03.11.2000, the respondent gave birth to a male child named Aswin Karthik. Prior to the birth of the child and also after birth, the respondent stayed with her parents in Ranipettai, Vellore District and this separation for about 8 months, according to the appellant, has widened the relationship between the appellant and the respondent. After the respondent returned to the matrimonial home, the appellant expressed his intention to continue his higher studies and to prepare for competitive examination after his regular working hours. Though appellant was earning out of his employment in government service, the respondent wanted him to concentrate in private practice ignoring his higher studies and thereby the respondent wanted to make huge money. Such attitude of the respondent, according to the appellant, was not to his liking. In fact, the respondent discouraged the appellant from pursuing his higher studies and also used abusive words about his earning capacity. Such an attitude on the part of the respondent has resulted in loss of mental peace and resultantly, the appellant could not succeed in the competitive examination held during the year 2002. In such a situation, the appellant had taken leave from his employment, kept himself away from the respondent and prepared for the competitive examination and ultimately he succeeded in securing 19th rank in the examination and got selected in the year 2003.

4. According to the appellant, prior to his succeeding in the competitive examination during 2003, in the year 2001, when he was posted at Tuticorin Medical Hospital for 7 months, he stayed in his home town at Tenkasi and attended to his work in Tuticorin. At that time, the respondent expressed her wish to start a Polyclinic in Tirunelveli Town in association with other Doctors. In this context, the father of the appellant gave him Rs.3,00,000/- and the respondent also contributed Rs.1,00,000/- by obtaining loan from her father. Even though a Polyclinic was started, it could not be run beyond one year and the appellant could not earn any profit. Thus, the entire investment made

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

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

SupremeToday

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