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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 2950

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Subbiah, P.D. Audikesavalu, JJ.
S. Subbulakshmi @ Sunitha - Appellant
Vs.
S. Subramanian @ Saravanan - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 1901 & 1902 of 2017
Decided On : 10-10-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
A. Arulmozhi, S. Namasivayam

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 366 - Hindu Marriage Act - Sections 9, 11, 7, 5, 2, 28, 15, 8 and 12 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 50 - Family Court Act - Section 19 - Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Section 13 - Marriage Solemnized – Matrimonial - These appeals arise out of a common order passed in HMOP on file of additional family judge - By said Order Family Court dismissed HMOP filed by appellant/wife herein for restitution of conjugal right and allowed HMOP filed by respondent-husband whereby marriage solemnized between appellant and respondent was declared as null and void - Respondent herein has filed HMOP before Family Court praying to declare marriage solemnized between him and appellant herein at star park as null and void - On receipt of notice in HMOP appellant herein has filed HMOP before family court for restitution of conjugal rights – Held, Thus appellant had taken several steps to rejoin matrimonial company of respondent even during pendency of original petition filed by respondent for declaring marriage solemnized between him and appellant as a nullity - Notwithstanding filing of counter affidavit as stated appellant has also independently filed HMOP for restitution of conjugal right - Even in deposition of appellant before family court as RW1 she has categorically stated that she had taken several steps to rejoin matrimonial company of respondent but she could not succeed in such attempts - Thus it is evident that appellant was always ready and willing to join matrimonial company of respondent - In any event in view of our findings with respect to point Nos-1 and 2 holding that alleged marriage between Stephen Vinod PW4 and appellant cannot be recognized under Act as it was not proved by respondent by adducing concrete material evidence we answer point No-3 also in favour of appellant and against respondent - Appeals are allowed.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

These appeals arise out of a common order dated 20.12.2016 passed in HMOP Nos. 298 and 1025 of 2014 on the file of Additional Family Judge, Coimbatore. By the said Order dated 20.12.2016, the Family Court dismissed HMOP No. 298 of 2014 filed by the appellant/wife herein under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right and allowed HMOP No. 1025 of 2014 filed by the respondent-husband under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereby the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent on 25.06.2009 was declared as null and void.

2. The respondent herein has filed HMOP No. 3 of 2014 before the Family Court, Madurai under Section 11 of The Hindu Marriage Act (in short The Act) praying to declare the marriage solemnised between him and the appellant herein on 25.06.2009 at Star Park Kalyana Mandapam, Madurai as null and void. On receipt of notice in HMOP No. 3 of 2014, the appellant herein has filed HMOP No. 298 of 2014 before the Family Court, Coimbatore, under Section 9 of The Act for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of the aforesaid Original Petitions, the appellant herein has filed Tr.CMP No. 226 of 2014 before this Court to transfer HMOP No. 3 of 2014 on the file of Family Court, Madurai to the file of Family Court, Coimbatore so as to be tried along with HMOP No. 298 of 2014 filed by her. By order dated 24.07.2014, this Court allowed the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition transferring HMOP No. 3 of 2014 from the file of Family Court, Madurai to the file of Family Court, Coimbatore, so as to be tried along with HMOP No. 298 of 2014 filed by the appellant. On transfer, HMOP No. 3 of 2014 was re-numbered as HMOP No. 1025 of 2014.

3. The averments, based on which HMOP No. 3 of 2014 was filed by the respondent (HMOP No. 1025 of 2014) are that the marriage between him and the appellant was proposed to be solemnised and after deliberations among the elders of both sides, an engagement ceremony was performed on 04.06.2009 at Coimbatore, even though the native place of the appellant and her family is Ooty. Thereafter, on 25.06.2009, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised at Star Park Kalyana Mandapam, Madurai as per Hindu rites and custom in the presence of elders, friends and relatives of both sides. At the time of marriage, Thali Chain worth about 5 sovereigns and Mangalya Thali worth about 1 sovereign was presented to the appellant by the parents of the respondent. As per the custom, marriage expenses to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs was spent by the father of the respondent. The marriage was also duly registered before the concerned Registrar of Marriage at Madurai. According to the respondent, after the marriage, the appellant did not evince keen interest in having sexual intercourse with him and thereby caused immense mental agony to him. When it was questioned by the respondent, the appellant replied that she is terribly tired due to the marriage ceremonies as well as subsequent events and therefore, the respondent did not take it seriously by then. After the marriage, the respondent and the appellant stayed together at the house of the respondent for a week. During such stay at Madurai, the appellant was not in her normal mood and most of the time, she kept herself aloof from the respondent and his family members. The appellant never attended to the domestic work and the respondent bonafidely believed that by passage of time, the appellant will be back to her normal behavioural pattern, as expected. At the time of marriage, the respondent was employed in London and therefore, to make necessary arrangements for getting visa to the appellant, the respondent came to Chennai along with the appellant and stayed in his sister's house. Even during such stay, the appellant exhibited improper and irrelevant behaviour without any valid reasons. Thus, from the date of marriage, the behaviour of the appellant was not proper, espec



















































































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
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