Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3492
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, C. SARAVANAN, JJ.
M. Madan Mohan - Appellant
Vs.
K.R. Rajalakshmi - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2988 of 2017
Decided On : 26-09-2018
K.G. Krishna Raj, Adv., S. Shanthakumari, Adv., Geeta Ramaseshan, Adv.
Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 - Matrimonial Cruelty - Love Affair - Physical Relationship Before Marriage - It is his case that even prior to marriage he got acquainted with respondent through a common friend who fell in love with a girl and respondent happened to be her friend - Friend of appellant and friend of respondent who loved each other got married - In this context appellant and respondent happened to meet each other frequently and this had developed into an intimacy - According to appellant respondent informed him that she passed bca degree and was living with her brother - Respondent further represented that she is working as a customer support executive at city bank and her parents were staying at tricky - Appellant further stated that respondent informed him that her brother is working in a private company - According to appellant due to close intimacy which he had developed with respondent she became pregnant - Appellant also informed his parents about his love affair with respondent and physical relationship he had with respondent before marriage - Though appellant and respondent belonged to different community in view of fact that respondent became pregnant even before marriage his parents taking into account larger interest of their son appellant herein have skipped all formalities such as enquiring about family background of respondent and arranged for an engagement ceremony and thereafter solemnized marriage between appellant and respondent - According to appellant before marriage respondent aborted pregnancy - Held, We are of view that these averments of appellant are not such that they can be taken into account for dissolving matrimonial tie between appellant and respondent or they can be inferred to conclude that appellant was subjected to matrimonial cruelty at instance of respondent - In decision relied on by learned counsel for appellant in respondent/wife expressed her decision not to give birth to a child for at least for two years and thereby it was alleged that she had caused cruelty towards husband - In that case respondent/wife obtained a decree of divorce from her first husband through whom a child was also born - After obtaining a decree of divorce from her first husband and during pendency of appeal filed there against by first husband she married appellant as her second husband - After such marriage she declared that she is not inclined to give birth to a child for two years and till such time appellant should not disturb her and that he should try to keep himself aloof - In circumstances honorable supreme court has held conditions imposed by respondent/wife is against spirit of matrimonial relationship between them and thereby appellant husband was subjected to matrimonial cruelty by reason of respondent/wife refusing to have cohabitation with him - While so said judgment also cannot be made applicable to facts of this case - In present case it was not alleged by appellant that respondent refuses cohabitation and therefore he was subjected to matrimonial cruelty - Appeal is Dismissed.
R. Subbiah, J.
This appeal is filed by the appellant/husband aggrieved by the Order of dismissal dated 17.08.2017, dismissing the Original Petition No. 3459 of 2011 filed by him for dissolving the marriage solemnised between him and the respondent on 10.03.2006, on the ground of cruelty.
2. (I) It is the case of the appellant, in OP No. 3459 of 2011 filed by him before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, that he married the respondent on 10.03.2006 and the marriage was solemnised at S.B. Thirumana Mandapam at Anna Nagar East, Chennai, as per Hindu rites and customs. It is his case that even prior to the marriage, he got acquainted with the respondent through a common friend, who fell in love with a girl and the respondent happened to be her friend. The friend of the appellant and the friend of the respondent, who loved each other, got married at Anna Nagar. In this context, the appellant and the respondent happened to meet each other frequently and this had developed into an intimacy. According to the appellant, the respondent informed him that she passed B.C.A. degree and was living with her brother at Anna Nagar. The respondent further represented that she is working as a Customer Support Executive at Citibank and her parents were staying at Trichy. The appellant further stated that the respondent informed him that her brother is working in a private company at Chennai.
(ii) According to the appellant, due to the close intimacy which he had developed with the respondent, she became pregnant. The appellant also informed his parents about his love affair with the respondent and the physical relationship he had with the respondent before marriage. Though the appellant and respondent belonged to different community, in view of the fact that the respondent became pregnant even before the marriage, his parents, taking into account the larger interest of their son, the appellant herein, have skipped all the formalities such as enquiring about the family background of the respondent etc., and arranged for an engagement ceremony and thereafter, solemnised the marriage between the appellant and the respondent on 10.03.2006. According to the appellant, before the marriage, the respondent aborted the pregnancy.
(iii) It is the contention of the appellant that neither he nor his parents demanded any dowry from the respondent. On the other hand, the parents of the appellant have met the entire expenditure relating to the marriage with a sole view that the appellant should enjoy a peaceful and blissful married life with the respondent. It is the parents of the appellant who have bought thali chain weighing 9 sovereigns and the Mangalyam was brought by the mother of the respondent's as per their choice by receiving amount from her parents. Above all, the parents of the appellant did not impose any condition during or after the solemnisation of the marriage and they only intended that their son should lead a happy matrimonial life with the respondent.
(iv) According to the appellant, after the marriage, the respondent did not discharge her duties as a dutiful wife, rather, she picked up quarrel even for petty and trivial reasons. After the marriage, the respondent's parents invited the appellant and the respondent purportedly for a marriage reception arranged at their native town at Aranthangi in Pudukottai District since all their relatives could not attend the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent at Chennai. Accordingly, the appellant, his parents and the respondent went to Aranthangi where they were asked to stay in a hotel and on the next day they were taken to Pillayarpatti where the reception was arranged. On reaching Pillaiyarpatti, to the shock and surprise of the appellant and his parents, they came to know the reception was not intended for the appellant and the respondent, rather, it was the 60th wedding day of the parents of the respondent which was celebrated at Pillaiyarpatti. Notwithstanding
