The main legal point established in the judgment is that false complaints and acts of mental cruelty can constitute grounds for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

V.M. Velumani, J.

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the order and decree dated 12.07.2016 made in H.M.O.P.No.459 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Erode.)

1. The appellant/husband is challenging the order of dismissal dated 12.07.2016 made in H.M.O.P.No.459 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Erode.

2. The appellant is husband and respondent is wife. The appellant filed H.M.O.P.No.459 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Erode under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage conducted between the appellant and respondent on 31.08.2006.

Case of the appellant:

3. The appellant/husband got married to the respondent on 31.08.2016. The marriage was an arranged marriage. From the date of marriage, the respondent was not cordial towards the appellant and his parents and informed her parents that she is allergic to marriage as her elder sister was driven out of the matrimonial home. She is not interested in conjugal relationship. A male child namely Dharakeshwar was born on 25.09.2007. The respondent did not take care of the child and was not doing house hold work and cooking properly. When the parents of the appellant asked her to do the household work, she abused them in filthy language.

3(a). The appellant's parents advised him to set up a separate matrimonial home. The respondent was an egoistic person and dominating in nature. She has taken all the salary of the appellant and used to spend it according to her whims and fancies and appellant has to take money from the respondent for his expenses. The respondent never liked the parents of the appellant visiting their house and insulted them whenever they come to the house. Due to the attitude of the respondent, they stopped their visit to the appellant's home. The respondent never understood the practical difficulties of the appellant who is working as a Head Master of a Government School. She would insist the appellant to reach home by 4.40 p.m. every day. When the appellant had to visit the office of the AEEO and come back to the house late after the said visit, the respondent used to abuse the appellant, suspecting his character. She used to harass the appellant by contacting him over cell phone during School hours. Due to that, he lost his mental peace.

3(b). After the birth of male child, the respondent refused to have conjugal relationship with the appellant. The respondent used to pickup quarrel when the appellant spent money for his parents towards medicines. After the quarrel, she used to go to her mother's house and appellant used to go to her mother's house and apologize on more than 10 occasions and then only she will return to the matrimonial home. She threatened the appellant that she would give false complaint against the appellant and his family on dowry harassment so that the appellant will lose his government job. The respondent used to be awake till odd hours in the night and wants the appellant also to be awake till she goes to sleep. The appellant who was a Teacher and later the Headmaster would request the respondent to permit him to take rest to enable him to attend his duty on the next day, for which the respondent would insult the appellant with unbearable words in the odd hours of night. Hence, the appellant could not discharge the duty as a Teacher. The respondent on three occasions, attempted to commit suicide by taking sleeping pills. The appellant took her to the Hospital for treatment. The appellant arranged for Counseling for the respondent, which she attended for a week and then, she stopped attending the Counseling. The respondent has no love and affection for the appellant and their son. The respondent used to beat the son mercilessly for his trivial childish act. On 21.04.2014, when the respondent started quarrel with the appellant, he advised the respondent to behave like a good family woman.