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

2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.02.2022 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY C.M.A.No.1774 of 2017 R.Manimudi ... Appellant Versus M.Bagyalakshmi ... Respondent Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed under Section

19 of Family Courts Act, against the Order and Decree dated 21.10.2016 passed in H.M.O.P.No.985 of 2008, by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Coimbatore.

For Appellant : M/s. A. L. Ganthimathi For Respondent : Mr. B. Vijayakumar

JUDGMENT

D .Bharatha C hakravarthy, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/husband viz., Mr.R.Manimudi, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 21.10.2016 in H.M.O.P.No.985 of 2008, dismissing the application filed by him under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolving the marriage between him and the respondent/wife viz., M.Bagyalakshmi, solemnized on 06.07.2006.

2.The case of the appellant before the Family Court, Coimbatore is that his marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 06.07.2006. Even from the date of marriage, without informing him, frequently, the respondent/wife would go to her parents' house and thereafter threatened him to come and take her back, by stating that she would otherwise commit suicide. She did not perform the domestic chores at the matrimonial home right from the date of marriage. She attempted to commit suicide in the year 2006 i.e., 20 days before the Deepavali Festival by consuming cow dung powder. Thereafter, upon compulsion of the appellant's parents, a separate residence was set up, even then she lived with him only for 20 days. Thereafter, she picked up a quarrel and went away. Again upon the insistence of the appellant, she came back, and by citing that she was seven months pregnant and there was no assistance to her, she again went back to her parents' house.

3.On 24.08.2007, the appellant received a message that she delivered a boy baby and he visited her in the hospital. Thereafter, again the respondent/wife went back to her parents' house. Without even consulting the appellant or his parents, the respondent/wife named the child. After a prolonged delay, she came back, but, however, immediately, by breaking her bangles and making emotional drama, she went back to her parents' house. The respondent/wife came back after four months for living, even during that period also she did not do any domestic chores and she did not properly look after the child. Thereafter, on 30.06.2008, the appellant picked up a quarrel and called her brother Raja, who also telephonically abused the appellant. However, in spite of the persuasion, on the same day, she left to the parents' house.

4.The appellant also lodged a complaint on 07.07.2008 before the Alandurai Police Station to unite the respondent/wife and the child, however, the respondent/wife even refused to come for enquiry. Even then the appellant wanted to forget the past and again live with the respondent. Therefore, he issued a legal notice on 17.07.2008 calling upon her to come and live together. Since she did not come even after receipt of the legal notice, a petition for divorce was filed.

5.The case of the respondent/wife before the Family Court, Coimbatore was that after the marriage, she was performing all the domestic chores as a dutiful wife, and she fulfilled all the necessities of her husband including cooking, sending him at a time for his business. After the respondent came to the matrimonial home, on 18.02.2008 i.e., after the birth of the child, the appellant insisted for jewels for the child and also money for building a house. Demanding the same, the respondent was sent to her parents house. On 03.06.2008, she was also physically tortured. Therefore, she went to the Police Station where the police compromised both. Only because, the appellant did not allow her in the matrimonial house demanding the above things, the respondent was unable to join with the appellant. The respondent is willing to join with the appellant, by considering her own future and the future of the child, therefore, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6.Unable to find any resolution through counseling, the Family Court, proceeded with the trial. The appellant/husband examined himself as P.W.1, and his relative one Venkatachelam as P.W.2 and his mother Kaliammal as P.W.3. The Ration Card of the appellant was marked as Ex.P-1; The marriage invitation was marked as Ex.P-2; The complaint given by the appellant/husband was

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