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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 567

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, S. SOUNTHAR, JJ.
C. Sivakumar – Appellant
Versus
A. Srividhya – Respondent
C.M.A. No. 3249 of 2017
Decided on : 05-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :S. Subbiah, Senior Counsel, M/s. P. Raja, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate.

The main legal point established is that the conduct amounting to mental cruelty, as defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, can lead to the grant of divorce.

Headnote:

Cruelty - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act - 13(i) (ia) - [K.Srinivas Rao Versus D.A.Deepa, K.Srinivas Versus K.Sunita, Raj Talreja Versus Kavita Talreja, V.Santhi Versus K.Kumar, Narendra Versus K.Meena, Dr.Anusha Versus Dr.Arjun, Vallabhi Versus R.Rajasabhai] - The court discussed the concept of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act and its interpretation by the Apex Court. It found that the wife's conduct of suspecting the husband's character, making false allegations of an extra-marital affair, and creating scenes at his workplace amounted to mental cruelty, leading to the grant of divorce.

Fact of the Case:

The husband sought divorce on the ground of cruelty, alleging that the wife suspected his character, made false complaints, and created scenes at his workplace. The Family Court dismissed the petition, but the husband appealed.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the wife's conduct amounted to mental cruelty, as per the interpretation of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, and granted the divorce.

Issues: Whether the husband proved cruelty as a ground for divorce and whether the lower court's findings called for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act and the evidence of the wife's conduct to establish mental cruelty, leading to the grant of divorce.

Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower court's order and granting a decree for divorce in favor of the husband.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court discusses cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act 13(1)(ia) and its mental cruelty interpretation using Apex Court precedents (!) (!) (!) . - Fact pattern: wife's suspicions, false complaints, and creating scenes at the husband’s workplace amount to mental cruelty per the judgment (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Evidence cited includes acts like visiting workplace, making complaints to police, and allegations of illicit relationships, leading to inference of mental cruelty (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Family Court dismissed the petition; the High Court allowed the appeal and granted a decree for divorce in favor of the husband (!) (!) . - References to related precedents cited to define cruelty and its mental aspect (A. Jayachandra v. Annel kaur, K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, Narendra v. K. Meena, etc.) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Removal of thali chain at separation considered as evidence of intent to dissolve the marriage and mental cruelty in this case (!) (!) . - Final order: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed; decree for divorce granted to husband; no cost order (!) .

What is the standard of mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act as applied to divorce?

What are the factual acts that the court considered as mental cruelty grounds for divorce?

What is the outcome of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal regarding the divorce petition on grounds of cruelty?


JUDGMENT :

S. Sounthar, J.

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, to set aside the decree and the judgment dated 15.06.2016 rendered in H.M.O.P.No.604 of 2014, on the file of the Family Court at Erode, by allowing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.)

1. Aggrieved by an order dismissing the petition for divorce filed on the ground of cruelty by appellant/husband the present appeal is filed.

2. The appellant/husband sought for divorce on the ground of cruelty in H.M.O.P.No.604 of 2014, on the file of the Family Court, Erode. According to him the marriage with the respondent took place on 10.11.2008. At the time of marriage he was working as a Lecturer in Vivekanandha Medical College and the respondent/wife was working as a Teacher in Government School. They lived together for 2 and 1/2 years in the parental home of the appellant and out of wedlock a female child Sreedhanya was born. According to appellant, the respondent/wife developed suspicion about the appellant's conduct and character and humiliated him by connecting him with his female colleagues. A false complaint was preferred by respondent/wife against appellant/husband before Thiruchengodu All Women Police Station, and the same was marked as Ex.P.2 and thereafter on advise by the police both the parties set up nucleus family in the first floor of appellant's parental home. The appellant/husband also averred in his petition that the respondent/wife with the evil intention of tarnishing the image of the appellant came to his work place (college) and had spoken ill of him by connecting him with other female lecturers. The respondent/wife also said to have given another complaint before Erode, All Women Police Station on 08.11.2011. On the advise of the police, the appellant/husband set up a separate new matrimonial home at Erode, but the respondent/wife made unreasonable demands and got separated from appellant/husband without any reasonable cause. Hence, according to appellant/husband they have been living separately from January 2011 onwards. The appellant also submitted that all his attempts for reunion resulted in failure and hence he was constrained to file the above petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

3. The respondent filed her counter statement wherein she admitted that the appellant is working as a Professor in Thiruchengodu, Vivekanandha Medical College and the respondent was working as a Teacher in Government School. The respondent denied various allegations found in the petition for divorce. The respondent specifically raised a plea that the petitioner was having illegal intimacy with other working women and he used to talk with them through cell phone till mid night. According to the respondent, the petitions filed by her before police were only for reunion and she wanted to live with the appellant having welfare of female child in her mind. She also expressed her willingness to work as dutiful wife of the appellant and also give respect to the elders of the appellant's family. On these pleadings she sought for the dismissal of the divorce petition.

4. Before the Family Court, the appellant was examined as P.W.1 and one Senthilkumar, colleague of the appellant working in the same college was examined as P.W.2. The respondent was examined as R.W.1. On behalf of the appellant, Exs.P1 to P6 were marked and no document was marked on behalf of the respondent.

5. The Family Court on consideration of the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove cruelty pleaded by him and dismissed the divorce petition and aggrieved by that the above appeal is filed by the appellant/husband.

6. On the basis of the pleadings oral and documentary evidences, order passed by the lower Court and contentions of the counsel for both the sides, the following points are arising for consideration in this appeal.

"(i) Whether the appellant/husband proved his plea of cruelty as a ground for divorce?

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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