MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. Vadamalai, J.
Ashok @ Premnath – Appellant
in both CMSAs
versus
S. Usha Bhuvanaswari – Respondent
in both CMSAs
C.M.S.A.(MD).Nos.20 and 21 of 2021
Decided on 1.11.2023
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 9 and 14 – Restitution of conjugal rights – Dismissal of divorce case filed by petitioner husband – Petitioner has filed petition for divorce within completion of one year from date of marriage – Petition for divorce filed by petitioner/husband is hit by Section 14 of Hindu Marriage Act – Temperamental differences between spouses could be resolved over time and should not be used as grounds for divorce – Though petitioner alleges against respondent that she insulted and disrespected him and his family members, he has not established the same by examining any of his family members – Initiation of D.V. case and M.C case only to protect her rights and it should not be held as cruelty – Petitioner has not established that filing of such proceedings amount to cruelty – Separate living is only because of filing of petition for divorce by petitioner – Respondent/wife has proved her stand that she has taken sincere efforts for reunion and she is entitled to relief of conjugal rights – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18)
Result: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT (COMMON)
These Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals are preferred against the common judgment and decree dated 07.12.2019 made in H.M.C.M.A.Nos.3 of 2019 and 4 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Court (FTC), Paramakudi, confirming the common judgment and decree dated 18.01.2019 passed in H.M.O.P.Nos.16 of 2017 and 40 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mudukulathoor.
2. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife.
3. The appellant is petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.16 of 2017 and respondent in H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mudukulathoor.
4. For the sake convenience, the parties are referred as petitioner/husband and respondent/wife as adopted in H.M.O.P.No.16 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mudukulathoor.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 27.08.2015.At the time of marriage 17 sovereign gold jewels and seer articles were given. After marriage, the petitioner and the respondent were living happily for 10 days. Thereafter, the respondent used to talk frequently through cellphone and insisted the petitioner for separate life. The respondent used to talk with her mother commenting upon the petitioner as if he looks to be an old man and bad smell from mouth. The respondent used to ignore the cohabitation and she did not allow for consummation. The respondent demanded money from the petitioner and used to make frequent quarrels if not paid. The respondent disrespected the parents of the petitioner and the petitioner by scolding with untold words in the public place. Moreover, the respondent filed complaint before the All Women Police Station Keelakarai against the petitioner and his family members alleging demand of dowry and harassment. She filed DVC.No.1 of 2016 and M.C.No.4 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Mudukulathoor seeking maintenance. By the acts of the respondent, she caused mental cruelty to the petitioner. The petitioner suffered not only from mental strain, but also physical strain. The respondent left the matrimonial home. There is no possibility of reunion. Hence, the petitioner has filed the petition in H.M.O.P.No.16 of 2017 against the respondent seeking for divorce.
6. It is the case of the respondent/wife that the marriage between the parties solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs is admitted. At the time of marriage 17 sovereign gold jewels to respondent, 5 sovereign gold to petitioner and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- with seer articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- were given to the petitioner. The respondent denied the allegations that the respondent used to talk through cell phone and to make frequent quarrels with petitioner and that she neglected the consummation. The petitioner is a mechanic and he used to stay in his mechanic shop many days. On enquiry, the petitioner had illicit intimacy with another girl named Selvarani. When questioned this, the petitioner beat and harassed the respondent. The respondent did panchayat with the assistance of elders. The petitioner is in habit of consuming liquor and harassed the respondent by demanding more dowry. On 22.12.2015 at 8.00 a.m. the petitioner and his parents and sister quarreled with the respondent and attacked her with wooden logs and confined her in a dark room without giving food. They attempted to kill her with a rope. Fortunately, the respondent escaped and gave a police complaint before the All Women Police Station Keelakarai and the same was registered in Crime No.14 of 2015. The respondent has also filed D.V.C.No.1 of 2016 and M.C.No.4 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Mudukulatoor seeking shelter and maintenance. As a counter, the petitioner filed the H.M.O.P.No.16 of 2017 seeking divorce with false allegations and on ill advise of his parents and family members. The respondent is always ready and willing to live together with the petitioner and she has filed th
(1) Divorce – Temperamental differences between spouses could be resolved over time and should not be used as grounds for divorce.(2) Initiation of D.V. case and M.C case should not be held as cruelt....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that false accusations, defamatory publications, and complaints to the employer can constitute mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, leading....
Long separation and failure to perform marital duties can constitute grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The appeal court affirmed that substantial evidence of cruelty and adultery justified the husband's divorce petition, while mere allegations against him lacked sufficient proof.
The court established that mental cruelty, evidenced by the respondent's behavior, justified the dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, particularly regarding cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of m....
A second marriage during the pendency of an appeal against a divorce decree is illegal under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and allegations of cruelty must be substantiated by evidence.
The court concluded that unchallenged testimony constitutes admission and can validate claims of cruelty in divorce proceedings.
A divorce decree under the Hindu Marriage Act requires specific findings on cruelty; reliance on 'irretrievable breakdown' is not a valid ground.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.