Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1854

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
S. Dharmalingam – Appellant
Versus
Sooria Praba – Respondent
C.M.S.A(MD)No. 10 of 2008
Decided On : 01-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:T. Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel, S. Rajasekar, Advocate. For the Respondent:T. Selvakumaran, Advocate.

A marital relationship that has lost all emotional bonding and revolves only around the legal tie of marriage amounts to mental cruelty, justifying divorce under Section 13 (1) (1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Headnote:
Mental Cruelty - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 (1) (1a) - 2007 (4) SCC 511 (Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh) - 2013 Civil Appeal No.2012 of 2013, dated 26.04.2023 in Shri Rakesh Raman Vs. Smt. Kavitha
Fact of the Case:

The husband filed for divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty, alleging non-cooperation, hostile attitude, and refusal to live in a joint family by the wife. The wife alleged ill-treatment, abuse, and demand for dowry by the husband.
Finding of the Court:

The trial court granted divorce, finding that the wife had no intention to reunite. The appellate court dismissed the divorce petition, finding that the couple had reconciled and were leading a happy life.
Issues: The substantial questions of law raised included time delay for rejoining the matrimonial home, desertion by the wife, scolding with filthy words, and the reversal of the trial court's finding of cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the marriage had lost all emotional bonding, leading to mental cruelty. It cited instances of human behavior and held that the marriage had become a fiction, just supported by the legal tie, and that the continuation of the relationship would amount to mental cruelty.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and restoring the judgment and decree of the trial court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under Section 108 r/w Order 42 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the decree and judgment, dated 28.09.2007 made in A.S.No.76 of 2005 in the Court of District Judge, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil reversing the judgment and decree, dated 11.07.2005 in H.M.O.P.No.74 of 2004 on the file of the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.)

The husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.74 of 2004 on the file of I Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil seeking divorce on the ground of mental cruelty said to have been inflicted by the respondent wife. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on either side, the trial Court was pleased to allow the petition and has granted divorce decree. The wife had filed A.S.No.76 of 2005 on the file of District Court, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil. The learned first appellate Judge after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the appeal and dismissed the divorce petition filed by the husband. Challenging the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the husband.

2. The allegations in the divorce petition could be summarized as follows:

(i) Due to the non-cooperation and hostile attitude of the wife, the petitioner’s parents were separated within a week of marriage and the wife was not prepared to live in a joint family.

(ii) The wife was always picking up quarrel with the petitioner and had created nasty scenes and refused to discharge her marital obligations in view of the superiority complex that she is working in Bank and receiving more salary than the husband who is a conductor.

(iii) The wife used to insult the petitioner in vulgar language in the presence of his relatives, friends and guests and also in public places which caused mental and physical agony to the petitioner.

(iv) The wife was in the habit of residing in her parental home and not returning to the matrimonial home without any lawful excuse or reason.

(v) On 12.02.2001, the wife had left the matrimonial home while she was pregnant and the birth of the child was not informed to the petitioner.

(vi) The husband has sent 2 letters on 05.11.2001 and 12.11.2001 to the wife requesting her to come back to the matrimonial home. However, there was no response from the wife.

(vii) On 05.03.2002, the petitioner directly met the wife in her office and requested to rejoin in the matrimonial home and she refused to return to the matrimonial home.

(viii) She returned to the matrimonial home in the first week of June 2002 and on 28.06.2002, the wife and her brother Subramaniam Raja had attacked the petitioner which resulted in filing of a police complaint in Crime No.118 of 2002 on the file of South Thamaraikulam Police Station.

(ix) The husband has issued legal notice on 22.09.2003 seeking divorce and a reply was sent by the wife on 03.11.2004 making allegations against the petitioner that he demanded dowry and her salary. The petitioner had again approached the respondent on 17.11.2004 in her office and requested her to come back. However, there was no response from the wife. Hence, the present petition.

3. The contentions of the wife could be summarized as follows:

(i) The petitioner and the respondent were living in the petitioner''s house at Agastheeswaram until she was taken to her parental home for her first delivery.

(ii) As a Bank employee, the respondent is drawing more salary than the petitioner and this has developed a sort of inferiority complex in the petitioner. Because of the said complex, the petitioner used to ill-treat and abuse the respondent in filthy language. The petitioner used to beat the respondent demanding more money as dowry.

(iii) The petitioner had never bothered to see his own child and he never came to the respondent''s h