Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 490
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. KALYANASUNDARAM, R. THARANI, JJ.
Ragupathi - Appellant
Versus
Subasree & Another - Respondent
C.M.A.(MD). No. 201 of 2019 & C.M.P.(MD). No. 2712 of 2019
Decided on : 30-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :B. Mohan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel.
Accusations and character assassinations in the written statement and cross-examination amount to mental cruelty, justifying divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Headnote:
Family Courts Act - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(i), 13(1)(ia), 13(1)(ib) - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS] - The court analyzed the evidence and granted divorce on the ground of cruelty, rejecting the grounds of adultery and desertion. The appellant's allegations of falsity, forgery, and perjury were not substantiated. The court relied on previous Supreme Court decisions to confirm the divorce, emphasizing that accusations and character assassinations in the written statement and cross-examination amount to mental cruelty.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a divorce petition filed by the first respondent against the appellant and the second respondent under Sections 13(1)(i), 13(1)(ia), 13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner alleged cruelty, adultery, and desertion by the first respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The Family Court granted divorce in favor of the first respondent, concluding that the petitioner did not prove the grounds of adultery and desertion, while allowing the petition on the ground of cruelty.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the allegations of cruelty, adultery, and desertion, as well as the appellant's claims of falsity, forgery, and perjury.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous Supreme Court decisions to confirm the divorce, emphasizing that accusations and character assassinations in the written statement and cross-examination amount to mental cruelty.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Family Court granting divorce to the first respondent was confirmed.
K. Kalyanasundaram, J.
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the decree and judgment dated 14.12.2018 made in H.M.O.P.No.211 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul.)
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Dindigul in H.M.O.P.No.211 of 2018.
2. Facts in nutshell:
(i) H.M.O.P.No.211 of 2018 was filed by the first respondent against the appellant and the second respondent under Sections 13(1) (i), 13(1) (ia), 13(1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
(ii) The case of the petitioner is that on 29.04.2007, the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnised as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Prem Mahal in Karur. At that time, the demand made by the parents of the first respondent for providing 100 sovereigns of gold, Rs.3,00,000/- and a Maruthi Car was met out. Subsequent to the marriage, the first respondent was not leading a happy married life and when it was enquired by the petitioner, he informed that he was not at all interested in the marriage, but he accepted the marriage expecting huge dowry. The petitioner replied stating that since marriage was already performed, she is ready to live with him as he likes, for which the first respondent stated that she is talking like a prostitute. Thereafter, the first respondent scolded the petitioner in the presence of his parents on many occasions. But she was living patiently hoping that he would change his attitude.
(iii) It is further stated that when she was in the seven months pregnancy, the first respondent and his parents demanded a house for their living. So, the mother of the petitioner settled her property by a registered settlement deed dated 30.11.2007 and thereafter the father of the petitioner spent Rs.75,00,000/- for the construction of a new house and they started living in the new house from 29.04.2009. It is alleged that she was not provided with medical assistance and she was not permitted to eat whatever she likes. The first respondent did not allow the Doctors to conduct a surgery at the time of delivery and they demanded to wait for a normal delivery and eventually she delivered a child on 18.05.2008 through cicerone. In pursuance of the demand and torture met out by the first respondent and his parents, the lands measuring an extent of 10.33 acres in Survey Nos.246/5, 243/1, 248/2 situated in Papampatti Village was given as dowry.
(iv) It is further alleged that the first respondent demanded the petitioner to take sprout and raw vegetables and therefore, she was in hungry on many occasions and also suffered mental agony. In January 2011, the first respondent demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry from the parents of the petitioner and harassed her, so the parents of the petitioner gave Rs.5,00,000/- , considering the welfare of the petitioner and the minor child.
(v) In 2012, when the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor through online, the first respondent has wrongly entered her date of birth. When it was questioned, he stated that she should work as a slave and a house- maid. In September 2013, during the night hours, the first respondent was talking secretly to someone. On 12.10.2013, at 9.00 p.m., the first respondent was talking to have a romantic relationship with someone. When it was asked by the petitioner, there was no reply, but later on she became aware of the fact that the first respondent was talking with the second respondent, who was working in R.K.Tex. When the petitioner opposed the illegal intimacy with the second respondent, he assaulted her and during the time, the father of the first respondent also joined with him. So, the petitioner immediately called her parents and on the same day, she along with her minor son Adithya were taken to her parent’s house.
(vi) The petitioner further stated that in July 2014, she was selected as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II and joined in t
