Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1486
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.M. Sundresh, C. Saravanan, JJ.
G. Jagan - Appellant
Versus
M. Eswari - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 2554 of 2016
Decided On : 01-03-2019
For the Appellant : K. Govi Ganesan, Adv.
For the Respondent: Inamdar Ameenuur Rahman, Adv.
Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 173 – Claim of compensation – Injury - Against appellant - Under these circumstances appellant went in search of fresh employment in Chennai leaving respondent with his parents where couple had started their matrimonial journey - Respondent’s father appears to have prevailed upon the respondent to set up a separate matrimonial home in Chennai even though appellant did not have means to set up an independent matrimonial home at that time - It is case of appellant that though respondent’s father is none other than the appellant’s uncle had helped him out at that stage financially by getting him loan yet instigated respondent against appellant - It is further submitted that despite best of efforts lorry which was hypothecated with financiers by the appellant’s father was seized – Held, In counter before Family Court respondent has herself alleged that appellant was cruel and used to physically assault her - However there are also admissions from the respondent that she had given complaints before the police with a view to broker a peace with the respondent long after they were separated and that after the above petition was filed to dissolve marriage her intention has to set up independent matrimonial home away from appellant’s husband parties have lived together sporadically and have been at loggerheads - Respondent refused to come back to the appellant and after petition for dissolving marriage was filed - Respondent had filed a case in file of Judicial Magistrate, Additional Court under section 498(A) and 406 of I.P.C which was dismissed - These acts of respondent show that she was not interested in cementing relationship respondent has also not filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights - conduct of respondent in initiating criminal complaint against appellant which was ultimately dismissed shows that respondent was not interested in giving a chance for marriage to survive - Rather she did everything to break marriage - Even today when case was taken up for hearing no serious arguments have been advanced for contesting the present appeal - In view of above court are of opinion that impugned order in view in present appeal deserves to interfere and Family Court should be set aside - Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
C. Saravanan, J.
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 03.10.2016 made in F.C.O.P.No.10 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Chengalpet.)
1. The present appeal is directed against fair and decretal order dated 3.10.2016 in F.C.O.P.No. 10 of 2016 passed by the Family Court at Chengalpattu.
2. By the impugned order, the Family Court has dismissed the F.C.O.P.No.10 of 2016 filed by the appellant under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolving the marriage with the respondent-wife.
3. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 23.8.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs.
4. It is stated that within three months of the marriage the appellant’s father suffered heart attack and therefore the appellant was forced to look after the business carried on by his father. However, on account of lack of experience he sustained loss and the business had to be eventually closed down.
5. Under these circumstances, the appellant went in search of fresh employment in Chennai leaving the respondent with his parents where the couple had started their matrimonial journey.
6. The respondent’s father appears to have prevailed upon the respondent to set up a separate matrimonial home in Chennai even though the appellant did not have the means to set up an independent matrimonial home at that time.
7. It is the case of the appellant that though the respondent’s father is none other than the appellant’s uncle had helped him out at that stage financially by getting him loan, yet instigated the respondent against the appellant.
8. It is further submitted that despite best of the efforts, the lorry which was hypothecated with the financiers by the appellant’s father was seized.
9. It has been alleged that the in-laws of the appellant instigated the respondent-wife to demand a separate matrimonial home but the appellant was not ready to live away from his parents house to tide over the financial problem.
10. It has been alleged that despite request of the appellant and his father, the respondent failed to return to the matrimonial home. It was further submitted that the respondent’s father threatened to present blank cheques given by the appellant for the loan/finance arranged by them and gave pressure on the appellant.
11. In the petition, the appellant has alleged that his father-in-law demanded interest at usurious rate and subjected him to mental cruelty.
12. Under these circumstances, the appellant has filed the above petition to dissolve the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent.
13. In the proceeding before the family Court at Chengalpattu, the respondent filed a detailed counter denying the allegation. It has been alleged that despite repayment of loan by the respondent’s father, the appellant did not pay back the amount to him.
14. The respondent has alleged that the appellant was cruel and used to physically assault her and demanded money.
15. It was further alleged that though the loan was arranged to help out the appellant to tide over the financial problem and on account of his inability to repay the same, yet the appellant found a soft target in the respondent and used to frequently physically assault her.
16. The respondent has further alleged that at the time of marriage, the respondent’s parents had given a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- as Sridhana apart from other household articles including a washing machine. It was further alleged that the appellant used to demand money from the respondent and kept the respondent in his parents house as a prisoner.
17. It was further alleged that the appellant’s widowed sister who was alleged to be dependent on the appellant was well off and it is incorrect to state that the appellant was required to maintain them also after the death of her husband.
18. The respondent has also alleged that the appellant was uncomfortable with the resp
