Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 39584
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P.Velmurugan, K.K.Ramakrishnan, JJ
K.Arockia Parthiban – Appellant
Versus
A.Margaret Alphonsa – Respondent
C.M.A(MD)No.661 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.J.Jeyakumaran
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
The court ruled that allegations of cruelty were unsubstantiated, emphasizing reconciliation and children's welfare over divorce.
Headnote:(A) Indian Divorce Act, 1869 - Section 10(1)(X) - Divorce petition - Dismissal of husband's petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty - The court found no evidence of physical or mental cruelty as alleged by the husband, emphasizing the need for tolerance and the welfare of the children involved. (Paras 6, 11, 11.6, 11.7, 12)
(B) Marriage - Nature and purpose - The court discussed the sanctity of marriage, the importance of reconciliation, and the detrimental effects of divorce on children, urging couples to resolve trivial disputes for the sake of their children. (Paras 10.6, 11.7)
Facts of the case:
The husband filed for divorce citing instances of physical and mental cruelty, alleging that the wife had left the matrimonial home frequently and failed to include his name in her service records. The wife denied these allegations and provided counter-evidence.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found that the husband failed to substantiate claims of cruelty and highlighted the need for both parties to work towards the welfare of their children.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the husband established a case for divorce based on alleged cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the allegations of cruelty were not supported by sufficient evidence and emphasized the importance of maintaining the marriage for the sake of the children.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. husband's allegations of cruelty and wife's counterclaims. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding the validity of the divorce petition. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations on the importance of marriage and reconciliation. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. final decision to dismiss the appeal. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.]
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the husband, challenging the dismissal of his divorce petition filed under 10 (1) (X) of the Indian Divorce Act by the impugned judgment and decree in I.D.O.P.No. 170 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai.
2. The appellant and the respondent are Christians. The appellant married the respondent on 19.05.2010 at Kalaiyarkovil Arulanathar Church as per the Catholic rituals. Prior to the marriage, the appellant's parents were working in the Premier Mills- Hosur and hence, they had a residence in Pagalur Village near Hosur. The appellant is a teacher and worked in a place near Hosur and was living with his parents in the said village. After the marriage, the appellant took the respondent to Pagalur Village. Within 15 days of marriage, the respondent wanted to pursue her M.Phil study in her parent village namely Kalayarkovil. Therefore, the appellant got transfer to a place nearby Kalayarkovil village which comes under Kallal Education Union. On 15.09.2010, the respondent was asked to participate in teacher appointment interview conducted by Government and she got the appointment in Villupuram District. According to the appellant, she did not make any request for appointment near appellant’s parents residence at Hosur. Thereafter at her request, on 01.03.2011, the appellant arranged for her transfer and the same got materialized and the respondent was transferred to a nearby place close to Kalayarkovil. From that place, the respondent without looking after him, used to frequently leaving the matrimonial home without informing the appellant and stayed at her parent’s house. Therefore, some dispute arose and the same was amicably by settled a group of teachers and they had a reunion. Through the happy reunion, on 14.09.2011 a female child was born and on 05.11.2014 another female child was born. Subsequently, the st appellant planned to construct 1 floor in his father house in order to save the rental burden at the cost of Rs.15,00,000/- for which he demanded jewels of the respondent and also her arrear salary amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. In this regard there was some dispute and the appellant alleged that the respondent picked a fight and broken her ATM card. Subsequently on 21.07.2016, the appellant alleged that the respondent hit him with a key and hence he sustained injuries for which, he had taken 7 days medical leave. After the said incident, the respondent allegedly went to her parents house along with the children. On 20.08.2016 the appellant issued a advocate notice and compromise was entered into and they started their matrimonial life back. In the year 2017 the appellant's parents were suffering from illness and hence the appellant asked her to come along with him to see them, but the respondent refused to come and did not allow him to go to his house. Therefore, again she left the matrimonial home. Subsequently after 4 months, due to the intervention of the elders a compromise was arrived and agreed to live separately. A separate residence was taken and both were living upto 2018. In 2018 once again in order to a save the rental cost, both planned to live in the house of the appellant’s father. According to the appellant, from the year 2021 onwards, he found some change in the conduct of the respondent i.e., she had been frequently talking to some other persons in unusual manner. Therefore, some dispute arose regarding this suspicion. That being the situation, on 26.12.2022 at 07.45 p.m., according to the appellant, the respondent asked her uncle's son to assault the appellant. Therefo
