Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3491
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
Mary Fancy Kala - Appellant
Vs.
Sahaya Raj - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 491 of 2018; Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 5849 of 2018
Decided On : 26-09-2018
T. Selva Kumaran, Adv., R. Manimaran, Adv.
The appellant failed to prove that she is residing separately from the respondent for reasonable cause.
Headnote:
Dowry - Restitution of Conjugal Rights - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 2 - Family Court Act, 1984, Section 7 - Christian Marriage Act, 1872, Section 60 - Indian Divorce Act, 1869, Section 10 - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 - The court discussed the allegations of demand of dowry, cruelty, and illicit relationship, and considered the evidence presented by both parties. The court concluded that the appellant failed to prove that she is residing separately from the respondent for reasonable cause.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and respondent were married, but the appellant left the matrimonial home. The respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, and the appellant alleged demand of dowry and cruelty against the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to prove that she is residing separately from the respondent for reasonable cause.
Issues: Allegations of demand of dowry, cruelty, and illicit relationship, and whether the appellant is residing separately from the respondent for reasonable cause.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and concluded that the appellant failed to prove that she is residing separately from the respondent for reasonable cause.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
V.M. Velumani, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award made in I.D.O.P.No.8 of 2018 on the file of the District Judge, Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, dated 11.05.2018.
2. The appellant/wife is the respondent in I.D.O.P.No.8 of 2018. The respondent/husband filed I.D.O.P. No. 429 of 2015 on the file of the District Judge, Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, and the same was renumbered as I.D.O.P.No.8 of 2018.
3. According to the respondent, he got married on 25.04.2000 at Holy Family Church, Carmel Nager, Nagercoil, as per Christian rites and customs. The respondent is a fisherman and was working in abroad as fisherman at the time of marriage. The respondent and his parents did not demand and receive any dowry and jewelry, as the respondent was earning well and the appellant's family was poor. The respondent has sent his earnings to the appellant and given gold and diamond jewels to the appellant. He has also purchased five cents of lands in the name of appellant, due to love and affection towards the appellant. The respondent found that the appellant was having illicit relationship with her lady neighbor, namely, Jeni and because of her relationship, the attitude of the appellant has changed. The appellant has left on 25.05.2014 from the matrimonial home, when the respondent has requested her not to have relationship with the said Jeni. The respondent gave a complaint to All Women Police Station, Kanyakumari. The respondent took steps personally and through elders for rejoining, but the appellant has refused, hence, he filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
4. The appellant filed counter statement by denying all the allegations of the respondent. According to the appellant, at the time of marriage, the respondent received 42 sovereigns gold jewels for the appellant and 8 sovereigns gold jewels for him and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) in cash. The appellant's parents have also provided some articles for the family, worth about Rs. 1,00,000/-. From the date of marriage, the respondent used to get drunk and treat the appellant cruelly. He used to force the appellant to consume alcohol and if the appellant refused to comply with the same, the respondent would beat and kick her. He was earlier, having illicit relationship with one Rossy and also with Jeni. On 10.07.2014, the respondent and his family members assaulted the appellant and thrown her out from the matrimonial home. On 25.09.2014, the respondent and his family members came to the house of the appellant and demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) as dowry and if the appellant fails to pay the said amount, they will get the respondent to marry with some other girl, and if the appellant prevents the said marriage, they will kill the appellant and children. The appellant gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, on 25.09.2014 and it was registered as C.S.R.No.295 of 2014. The respondent and his family members did not attend the enquiry. On the other hand, he gave a false complaint against the appellant. The respondent also went to the school, where the children of the parties are studying and threatened to kill them and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Based on the pleadings, the learned District Judge, Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, framed necessary point for consideration.
6. Before the learned District Judge, Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, the appellant herself examined as R.W.1 and marked eight documents as Exs.R.1 to R.8. The respondent himself examined as P.W.1 marked three documents as Exs.P.1 to P.3.
7. The learned District Judge, Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, considering the pleadings, both oral and documentary evidence, held that the appellant failed to prove the cruelty and that she is living separately from the respondent for reasonable cause and allowed I.D.O.P.No.8 of 2018.
8. Against the said order, th
