Claims for damages related to marriage dissolution must be substantiated with clear evidence for quantification to be valid.

J U D G M E N T

Amit Rawal, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated

16/02/2023 in O.P.No.1189/2017 preferred by the 1st respondent/husband.

2. 1st respondent/husband, son-in-law of the appellant, instituted the aforementioned petition for claiming the damages to the tune of ₹20 lakhs. Before adverting to the claim in the aforementioned O.P., facts preceding to the institution are required to be brought out. Marriage between the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent was performed on 17/05/2010 as per the Muslim customary rites. Due to the misunderstanding between the parties, after five years of the marriage, parties started living separately. Wife instituted O.P.No.548/2015 for return of gold ornaments and share amount and O.P.(Div)No.550/2015 for dissolution of marriage, much less M.C.No.136/2015 for maintenance. In the petition for dissolution of marriage, the ground raised was cruelty and impotency. However, the wife on 04/05/2017 dissolved the marriage as per Islamic Law by declaring Faskh. Husband filed O.P.No.540/2017 for setting aside the Faskh but during the interregnum withdrew the same and thereafter instituted O.P.No.1189/2017 claiming damages to the tune of ₹20,00,000/- on the ground that the dissolution of the marriage has taken at his back. Appellant was arrayed as 2nd respondent and wife contested the aforementioned petition by filing the counter and objections, admitted the date of marriage but denied the averment that the marriage life was successful. It was alleged that not only the 1st respondent/husband, his parents and sister also treated the wife in a cruel manner, not only physically but was mentally tortured. O.P.No.550/2015 seeking dissolution was withdrawn and claim in the M.C.No.136/2017 was not pressed. Allegation of impotency was also attributed against the 1st respondent. Since the parties were at variance, the trial court framed the following issues:

i)Whether the petitioner is entitled to realise an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) from the respondents jointly and severally?

ii) Reliefs and costs?

1st respondent/husband examined himself as PW1 and brought on record Exts.A1 to A3, that is, copy of marriage register, copy of notice issued by 1st respondent and copy of objection in O.P.No.540/2017 challenging the Faskh. On the other hand, appellant who was arrayed as 2nd respondent in the O.P appeared and examined himself as RW1 and brought on record Exts.B1 and B2, that is, certified copy of judgment in O.P. (Others)No.548/2015 and certified copy of Decree. Learned trial court on the basis of the aforementioned evidence, particularly on the ground that the dissolution of the marriage was not brought to the knowledge of the 1st respondent, allowed the O.P and granted the compensation of ₹2,00,000/-.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/father-

in-law in support of the memorandum of appeal has raised the following submissions:

1) There is no direct and cogent evidence in substantiating the claim of ₹2,00,000/-.

2) Husband/1st respondent instituted O.P.No.540/2017 challenging the Faskh but withdrew the same and thereafter filed O.P.No.1189/2017.

3) Trial Court abdicated while rendering the finding in paragraph 13 that 2nd respondent herein and 1st respondent in the O.P. had obtained the Faskh without his knowledge. The said findings were neither here and there, based on figment of imagination.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.1 husband supported the order under challenge. It was submitted that respondent No.1 had sent Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to his wife P.Y.Nisamol and another Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for her undertaking B.Ed course. Thereafter she got temporary job as teacher in a private school. Gold ornaments were also with her. It is in this background, particularly on obtainment of divorce at his back, damages were sought.

5. We have heard respective counsel. It is a matter of record that