Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, JJ.
R. Sridharan - Appellant
Versus
R. Suganya - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 936, 1121, 1122 & 1271 of 2012; M.P. Nos. 1 of 2012 in CMA No. 936 of 2012; M.P. No. 1 of 2012 in CMA No. 1271 of 2012; C.M.P. Nos. 5334 & 5335 of 2018 in CMA No. 936 of 2012
Decided On : 11-07-2018
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 22, 25, 27, 13 and 13B - Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 - Section 18 - Indian Evidence Act, 1972 - Sections 59, 65A, 65 and 65B - Evidence Act, 1873 - Section 3 - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections14 and 20 - Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 49 - Illegitimate Relationship - It is case of respondent that matrimonial life was by and large peaceful and blissful when she was residing along with appellant in United States of America - For a few weeks after marriage parents of respondent also came and stayed along with respondent in same flat in United States of America - According to respondent within a few weeks of marriage she came to know about illegitimate relationship which appellant had with another woman - Respondent discovered such relationship on reading a letter addressed to appellant by one of his girlfriends by e-mail - According to respondent contents of letter had shocked her - Respondent also informed her parents about contents of letter and fact that said girl is residing at a place which takes an hours drive from house where respondent was residing - As per advise of her parents respondent invited girl to her house for a dinner along with her husband - Initially girl did not accept invitation and after much persuasion she came for a dinner along with her husband - After dinner father of respondent asked girl about contents of letter - Immediately she ran out of house without even wearing her shoes - Appellant who was sitting in other room was furious and started fighting with respondent - Held, Therefore in light of decision of Honorable Supreme Court we are of view that Family Court erred in directing appellant to pay to respondent towards permanent alimony - As regards application filed by respondent to direct appellant to return jewelleries listed in schedule of petition appellant has filed a counter affidavit contending that if really respondent had brought valuable jewels as claimed by her same could have been indicated in documents provided by customs authority which is a statutory obligation to person who enters United States of America - Obligation of respondent at time of her entry into United States of America is to declare all jewelleries to customs authority - However no such declaration was ever made by respondent which would only indicate that she has not brought such valuable jewels as alleged - Even otherwise respondent did not produce any documentary evidence in support of her claim and therefore appellant prayed for dismissal of application for return of jewelleries - Aforesaid contention of appellant have not been disproved by respondent by letting in any oral or documentary evidence - On contrary appellant categorically asserted that whatever valuable things left by respondent in matrimonial home have been handed over to father of respondent - Petitions are closed.
R. Subbiah, J.
As all the four Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of one and the same order passed by the Family Court, Chennai besides the parties to the appeals are also the same, these appeals are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common Judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their litigative status in CMA No. 936 of 2012, as appellant and respondent.
3. C.M.A. No. 936 of 2012 has been filed by the appellant/husband praying to set aside the decree and Judgment dated 16.03.2012 passed in FCOP No. 569 of 2004 on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai. The said FCOP No. 569 of 2004 was filed by the respondent/wife to dissolve the marriage solemnised between her and the appellant on 17.04.2002 on the ground of cruelty. The Family Court, by the said Judgment and Decree dated 16.03.2012 in FCOP No. 569 of 2004, granted a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent on 17.04.2002.
4. During the pendency of FCOP No. 569 of 2004, respondent has filed I.A. No. 2437 of 2011 under Section 25 of The Hindu Marriage Act seeking permanent alimony of Rs.5 crores. By the very same Judgment and Decree dated 16.03.2002, the Family Court, while granting a decree of divorce, partly allowed I.A. No. 2437 of 2011 filed by the respondent/wife by directing the appellant/husband to pay a sum of Rs.40 lakhs to the respondent/wife as against the sum of Rs.5 crores claimed by her. Challenging the said order dated 16.03.2002 in I.A. No. 2437 of 2011 in FCOP No. 569 of 2004, appellant has filed CMA No. 1271 of 2012.
5. The respondent has also filed I.A. No. 2438 of 2011 before the court below under Section 27 of The Hindu Marriage Act seeking to issue appropriate direction to the appellant to return all the articles listed in the schedule of the Petition. The Family Court, by the Order dated 16.03.2012, dismissed the said application, which is questioned by the respondent in C.M.A. No. 1121 of 2012.
6. Not being satisfied with the quantum of permanent alimony granted by the court below in and by the Judgment dated 16.03.2012, the respondent has filed C.M.A. No. 1122 of 2012 and prayed to direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.5 crores as permanent alimony as against the sum of Rs.40 lakhs awarded by the court below.
7. Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of these appeals, as could be culled out from the Petition in F.C.O.P. No. 569 of 2004 filed by the respondent/wife are as follows:-
8. (i) According to the respondent, she is a film actress and acted in many films in Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and also Hindi. She was also a recipient of State awards conferred by the Government of Tamil Nadu for her best acting performance in Tamil films. The appellant was working in a Software Company at United States of America. According to the respondent, the family of the respondent knew the family background of each other as, the appellant, during his school days, was living within the vicinity of the respondent's residence. As the family of the respondent knew about the family background of the appellant, the elders of family decided to solemnise the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. Both the families agreed to conduct a betrothal function and accordingly, a simple betrothal function was commemorated in the residence of the respondent at Chennai. At the time of the betrothal function, the appellant was in United States of America and he did not participate. Thereafter, the marriage between the respondent and the appellant was solemnised on 17.04.2002 at Balaji Temple, Bridge Water, New Jersey, United States of America, as per Hindu rites and customs, in the presence of elders and friends of both the families. After the marriage, for the purpose of getting visa for the respondent, the appellant registered the marriage on 30.07.2002 in United States.
(ii) It is the case of the respondent that the mat
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
