SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 3315

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, S. KANNAMMAL, JJ.
P. Karthikeyan - Appellant
Versus
Sarathi - Respondent
C.M.A. (MD) No. 163 of 2017
Decided On : 31-03-2021

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ajmalkhan Senior Counsel for Ajmal Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondent:S. Mahendrapathy, Advocate.

Headnote:

Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Indian Divorce Act - Section 10 (vii) & (x) - seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion - Misunderstanding arose between them and the respondent left the matrimonial home - refused to come and live with the appellant. - Appellant is that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent at CSI Church as per Christian Custom - Appellant and respondent lived together as husband and wife only for a week. Later, misunderstanding arose between them and respondent left the matrimonial home by telling that she doesn't like to live with the appellant. Inspite of repeated requests and inspite of panchayat held in the presence of elders, respondent refused to come and live with the appellant - Respondent never behaved as a dutiful wife whereas the appellant was always ready and willing to be a dutiful husband - Respondent without any valid reason deserted the husband - Respondent took all her certificates, clothing and jewels and left the matrimonial home - Appellant issued a legal notice respondent to come and live with the appellant – Held, Respondent/wife without any valid reason left the matrimonial home within a short span of marriage depriving appellant of conjugal life - Respondent preferred a false complaint of dowry harassment against the appellant and his parents in order to have a separate house - It is also found clear that appellant wantonly did not appear before the All Women Police Station, Dindigul when the appellant/husband and his parents came there to take respondent/wife with them - Respondent/wife amounts nothing but mental cruelty to the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife deserted appellant/husband for a statutory period without any valid reason - learned Family Court Judge without analyzing the averments and evidence of parties, dismissed the petition which is not sustainable - Findings recorded by the Family Court, is not correct. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that unsubstantiated allegations and unreasonable desertion by the respondent would amount to mental cruelty and the marriage deserves to be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

S. Kannammal, J.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of Family Courts Act, 1984, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 23.12.2016 made in I.D.O.P.No.57 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant/husband against the judgment and decree passed in I.D.O.P.No.57 of 2014, dated 23.12.2016 by the Family Court, Dindigul.

2. The case of the appellant is that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 26.01.2011 at CSI Church as per Christian Custom. After marriage, the appellant and respondent lived together as husband and wife only for a week. Later, misunderstanding arose between them and the respondent left the matrimonial home on 05.02.2011 by telling that she doesn't like to live with the appellant. Inspite of repeated requests and inspite of panchayat held in the presence of elders, the respondent refused to come and live with the appellant. The respondent never behaved as a dutiful wife whereas the appellant was always ready and willing to be a dutiful husband. The respondent without any valid reason deserted the husband. The respondent took all her certificates, clothing and jewels and left the matrimonial home. The appellant issued a legal notice on 13.11.2013 asking the respondent to come and live with the appellant.

Though the respondent received the notice, she did not respond to the same. The respondent refused to live with the appellant and was continuously deserting the husband. The respondent preferred a complaint against the appellant and his parents before the All Women Police Station, Dindigul with false allegations. After enquiry, the appellant was asked to come on 22.12.2013 to the police station and take the respondent with him. On 22.12.2013, the appellant went to the police station with his parents to take the respondent but the respondent did not come to the police station, which caused mental cruelty to the appellant. Hence, the appellant filed the petition for seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

3. The respondent admitted the marriage and denied all the other allegations. The respondent claimed that she lived with the appellant for three months and she was being a dutiful wife. The respondent is a post graduate. After marriage, the appellant was working at Chennai and visited the respondent once in a week. In those three months, the appellant and his parents started treating the respondent disrespectfully and in demeaning way. The appellant used filthy language after high alcohol consumption. When the same was complained to the parents of the appellant, they behaved in a hurtful way. After three months, all of a sudden, the appellant left the respondent at her parental home stating that his parents did not like the respondent, and also that he would arrange a separate house to reside. Whenever the respondent enquired about the separate house and asked him to take her back, the appellant evaded by stating irrelevant reasons. The respondent, through her parents, relatives and church fathers, met the appellant and requested him to take her back. The appellant refused by telling false allegations. On receipt of the legal notice from the appellant, the respondent preferred a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Dindigul. On enquiry, the appellant agreed in writing that he will arrange a separate house within a month and live with the respondent. But, he has filed this petition with false allegation. The respondent has sought for dismissal of the petition.

4. Before the Family Court, the appellant/husband examined himself as P.W.1 and one Pushpanathan was examined as PW2 and marked Exs.Pl to P6. On the side of the respondent/wife, she examined herself as R.W.1 and one Joice Maragatham was examined as RW2 and no documents were marked.

5. The learned Family Court Judge, Dindigul, after perusing the materials available on record, both oral and documen

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top