Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, C. SARAVANAN, JJ.
V.R. Rajkumaran - Appellant
Versus
B.S. Lavanya - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 134 of 2016
Decided on : 25-09-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sudha Ramalingam, Advocate
For the Respondent:P.V. Sudhakar, Advocate.
The party alleging cruelty in a divorce case must prove their case with evidence, and trivial disputes between spouses cannot be construed as matrimonial cruelty.
Headnote:
Divorce - Matrimonial Cruelty - The Hindu Marriage Act - [CRUELTY] - [DIVORCE] - [Section 13(1)(ia) of The Hindu Marriage Act] - The judgment discusses the allegations of cruelty made by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife and the court's analysis of the evidence presented. The court concludes that the appellant-husband failed to substantiate the allegations of cruelty, and the trivial disputes between the couple cannot be construed as matrimonial cruelty. The court also highlights the lack of evidence to prove the alleged misconduct or misdeed, and the absence of medical records to support the claims of the respondent-wife's mental condition. The judgment provides illustrative instances of cruelty and emphasizes the need for the party alleging cruelty to prove their case with evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-husband filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty, alleging that the respondent-wife's behavior changed after childbirth, and she refused to return to the matrimonial home. The respondent-wife denied these allegations and asserted her willingness to join the appellant-husband. The Family Court found that the appellant-husband failed to prove the allegations of cruelty and dismissed the Original Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant-husband failed to substantiate the allegations of cruelty and that the trivial disputes between the couple cannot be construed as matrimonial cruelty. The court emphasized the lack of evidence to prove the alleged misconduct or misdeed and the absence of medical records to support the claims of the respondent-wife's mental condition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant-husband could prove the allegations of cruelty against the respondent-wife to obtain a decree of divorce.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant-husband failed to discharge the burden of proof cast on him and did not contradict the respondent-wife to disprove her denial of the allegations. The court also emphasized the need for the party alleging cruelty to prove their case with evidence.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2015 passed in O.P. No. 336 of 2007 on the file of III Additional Family Court, Chennai, was confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
R. Subbiah, J
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of The Family Court Act against the order and decree dated 30.11.2015 passed in O.P. No. 336 of 2007 on the file of III Additional Family Court, Chennai.)
This appeal is taken up for hearing through video-conferencing.
2. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is his wife. The appellant-husband has come forward with this appeal questioning the validity and correctness of the order and decree dated 30.11.2015 passed in O.P. No. 336 of 2007 on the file of III Additional Family Court, Chennai, by which, the Family Court refused to grant a decree of divorce and dismissed the Original Petition filed by him.
3. The case of the appellant-husband, as culled out from the Original Petition filed by him before the Family Court, is as follows:-
(i) The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 27.08.2004 at Good Shepherd House, Nungambakkam, Chennai, as per Hindu rites and customs, in the presence of family members and relatives of both sides. At the time of marriage, the appellant-husband had completed M.Com., GNIIT and M.B.A. and was working in City Bank. The respondent-wife was a M.Sc., M.B.A. holder and was working in City Bank Associates, Chennai. Due to the wedlock between them, a male child was born on 27.11.2005, named as R.Sharaj. The matrimonial life was peaceful and blissful till September 2005 and when the respondent-wife conceived, she was sent to her parents- house for delivery of child. Thereafter, it was stated that the respondent-wife behaved indifferently towards the appellant-husband. Further, three months after the delivery of the male child, the appellant-husband called upon the respondent-wife to join him in the matrimonial home, but she refused. The appellant-husband also came to know that the respondent-wife left her job from City Bank without even informing him and had taken up a job in ABN Amro Bank with duty hours from 12.00 noon to mid-night. According to the appellant-husband, the respondent-wife ought not to have taken up such a nature of employment, inasmuch as it will affect her health to a great extent, besides she could not look after the new born child. When the appellant-husband advised her to atleast change her timing of the job, she refused to hear him.
(ii) According to the appellant-husband, seven months after delivery of the child, the respondent-wife came to the matrimonial home with the child, but on the next day, she left the matrimonial home. Once again, the respondent-wife came to the matrimonial home during the month of August 2006 and stayed only for a period of three months. During such stay, the respondent-wife behaved like a hysteric patient and quarrelled with the appellant-husband even for trivial issues. She used to take lot of pills and shout at the appellant-husband for reasons unknown. When the appellant-husband enquired about the tablets that she had taken, the respondent-wife did not respond. In one occasion, when the appellant-husband questioned the attitude of the respondent-wife, she threatened that she would commit suicide and will throw the blame on him. Such an attitude of the respondent-wife was also witnessed by the mother of the appellant-husband. In yet another occasion, the respondent-wife physically assaulted the appellant-husband in front of his mother. On seeing such an attitude of the respondent-wife, the appellant-husband-s mother had suffered acute stress and inconvenience.
(iii) It was stated that during October 2006, the child was diagnosed to have been suffering from Chikankuniya and at that time, the appellant-husband and his mother had taken care of the child. However, after the child recovered, the respondent-wife wanted to go to her parents- house and accordingly, the appellant-husband permitted her to go to her parents- house along with the child. Whenever the appellant-husband called the respondent-wife, she was in her mother-s place and her resp
