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

2017 Supreme(Mad) 3456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A. SELVAM, P. KALAIYARASAN, JJ.
K.C. Allwyn John - Appellant
Versus
A. Arokia Ruby – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 2448 of 2016
Decided On : 12-12-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : I. Abrar Md. Abdulla
For the Respondent: A. Arokia Ruby

Headnote:

Divorce Act, 1869 - Section 10 (1) (x) - Domestic Violence Act - Divorce - Cruelty - Appeal filed by the husband against the order of dismissal which was filed by him against his wife for dissolution of marriage - Held, As per Section 10 (1) (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, the dissolution can be granted if the respondent treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent - Loss in the business and non-payment of the loan availed by the husband for the business run by the respondent/wife cannot be construed as cruelty causing a reasonable apprehension of harmful or injurious to live with the respondent - Appellant/husband has not substantiated his case as to cruelty as against the respondent and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition filed by him - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

P. Kalaiyarasan, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the husband against the order of dismissal, dated 29.02.2016 in D.O.P.No.603 of 2010 by the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, which was filed by him against his wife for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, i.e., under Section 10 (1) (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869.

2. The appellant/husband as petitioner averred that marriage between him and the respondent took place on 18.01.2008 at Coimbatore as per the Christian rites and rituals. The respondent was running a garment unit under the name 'Ruby Garments' in Tiruppur, that the unit was also looked after by her brother. At her request, the appellant/petitioner availed personal loans from the private banks and also arranged money through credit cards and gave to the respondent and to her brother, nearly to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. Though it was assured to be repaid within a month, it was not done. The garment unit was closed within a month. The respondent was not showing any interest in family life and she had told the petitioner that she is not interested in married life and only to help her brother she married the petitioner. The take home salary of the petitioner became almost nill, as he had to repay the borrowed amounts. The respondent went missing on 13.05.2009 and on 16.05.2009 a complaint was preferred before the Commissioner of Police. On 30.05.2009, the respondent herself came to the petitioner’s house and began to abuse the petitioner and his family members. After a year she left the matrimonial house, she forcibly entered into the petitioner’s house on 16.05.2010 and attacked the petitioner’s mother and a complaint was preferred. She also lodged a false dowry complaint against the petitioner. She had vowed to disintegrate the family of the petitioner and the appellant/petitioner is at the apprehension that his life is in danger at the hands of the respondent.

3. The respondent in her counter admits the marriage between the appellant/petitioner and the respondent as per Christian rites. Ruby Garments belonged to the respondent’s brother. Only due to the compulsion of the petitioner, it was transferred to the respondent’s name and the appellant only caused the loss and closed the unit. Only the appellant/petitioner, his mother and sister treated the respondent cruelly and due to mental agony she suffered, the respondent went to Salakudi Prayer hall to purchase peace and utilizing the same, the appellant/petitioner lodged the complaint of missing. The respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner only with an intention to join with the appellant/petitioner.

4. From the date of marriage for about 6 months, the spouses were happy and afterwards the appellant with her mother and sister treated her cruelly and even attacked her. Out of the wedlock, the respondent conceived and as per the medical advice, she got aborted. The appellant, his mother and sister abused saying that the respondent caused loss to the tune of Rs.6,50,000/- and the same is to be paid with interest and left her to be in her parental home. After panchayat the appellant set up a separate residence in September 2008, but they have been demanding the amount from the respondent and on 03.03.2009 they beat the respondent and pushed her out from the house by forcibly snatching away the mangalyam. She complained the same to the Church and compromise attempt became futile. The appellant/petitioner alone gave false complaint against the respondent. The respondent also filed a case under Domestic Violence Act, seeking the right to residence and protection. She also filed O.P.No.1136 of 2011 for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. On the side of the appellant/petitioner, 3 witnesses were examined and 8 Exhibits marked. The respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and on her side, 10 Exhibits were marked. The learned trial Judge, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence of both sides dismissed the Divorce O.P filed












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top