The court established that mental cruelty can justify divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, and the Family Court erred in granting judicial separation when not sought.

JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated November 7, 2017 made in H.M.O.P.No.1445 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore.

PRAYER: Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated November 7, 2017 made in H.M.O.P.No.1445 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore.

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection are at the instance of the petitioner / appellant and the respondent respectively. In both the cases, challenge is to the Judgment and Decree dated November 7, 2017 passed by the ‘Principal Family Court, Coimbatore’ ['Family Court' for short], in H.M.O.P.No.1445 of 2015. This Common Judgment will govern both of them.

2. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Family Court.

PETITIONER’S CASE:

3. The marriage between the petitioner - Wife and the respondent - Husband was solemnized on August 28, 1998 in accordance with Hindu religious rites and customs. In their wedlock, they were blessed with a female child born in 1999, followed by a male child born in 2002. After their marriage, the petitioner resided in her matrimonial home in Keelthalaiyattumandhu, Udhagamandalam. Being new to the locality, the petitioner admired the surrounding nature, which led to the respondent’s mother accusing the petitioner of observing passers-by, thereby arousing suspicion in the mind of the respondent. The respondent, driven by such suspicion, began consuming alcohol and physically assaulting the petitioner.

3.1. During their stay in Udhagamandalam, the petitioner’s mother visited for the Pongal festival with Thalai Pongal Seer, which the respondent’s mother claimed to be insufficient. In a fit of rage, the respondent’s mother tossed and scattered the items, and verbally insulted the petitioner and her mother, and sent them out of the house as well, while the respondent did not object or intervene. Later, the respondent’s brother and sister-in-law mediated, assuring that such behaviour would not recur and brought the petitioner back home.

3.2. Then, while living in a rented house at Aruvangadu, when the petitioner was pregnant, the respondent would leave for work and return only after 10 days. Upon returning, he would engage in frequent quarrels and also assault her, questioning her fidelity. They had to frequently vacate their rental houses because of the respondent’s recurrent quarrels with the petitioner. Once, the respondent assaulted the petitioner and broke her nose leading to her hospitalisation for three days during which period the respondent offered no assistance or care.

3.3. Even after they shifted to Coimbatore in 2011, the respondent continued to quarrel and assault the petitioner out of suspicion. The respondent’s frequent drunken altercations adversely impacted the children’s education, prompting the petitioner to enroll them in a boarding school. The respondent had consented for the same.

3.4. Further, the respondent did not contribute financially to household expenses. The petitioner managed the household and medical expenses through her beauty parlour business. Due to insufficient income therefrom, the petitioner with her mother’s assistance set up a textile shop which was eventually closed as the petitioner feared that the respondent would cause trouble.

3.5. Further, when the house owner at Coimbatore forced her to vacate the house, the respondent did not lend any help. When she contacted the respondent, he refused to communicate and switched off his phone. It was with her mother’s support, the petitioner arranged to move to a new rented house in Narasimmanaicken Palayam.

3.6. The respondent’s consistent acts of cruelty, involving physical violence, baseless suspicions, and abandonment of responsibilities towards the petitio