IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 25.02.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN C.M.S.A.No.22 of 2018 Rajkumar ... Appellant vs Karunaprabha .. Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 13(1)(ia)
of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree passed in HMCMA. No.13 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore, dated 05.07.2017, confirming the order and Decreetal order made in HMOP. No.3 of 2016, dated
26.07.2017 on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Court, Gudiyatham.
For Appellant : Mr.Baskar For Respondent : Mr.T.Sreelekha For Mr.D.Rajagopal
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband against the judgment and decree passed in HMCMA. No.13 of 2017, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore, dated 05.07.2017, confirming the order and Decreetal order made in HMOP.
No.3 of 2016, dated 26.07.2017 on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Court, Gudiyatham.
2. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is his wife.
The appellant had filed a petition before the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent/wife for divorce and the same was taken on file in in H.M.O.P.No.3 of 2014.
3. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 14.11.2011 at Babu Mahal Palace Marriage Hall, R.S.Road, Gudiyatham, Vellore District according to the Hindu religious rites and customs.
4. The case of the appellant is that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was an arranged one. After the marriage, both of them were living in the appellant's house at Triplicane as joint family. Initially, the couple were living happily for a month and thereafter, the respondent started to pick up quarrel with the appellant even for unimportant issues. Further the respondent had wrongly thought that the appellant had an illegal intimacy with his elder brother's wife. Due to which, she used to quarrel with her husband. Therefore, the appellant had offered to set up a separate matrimonial home. But the respondent did not agree to the said demand and she wanted to leave from the matrimonial home. The elders of the appellant's family informed the attitude of the respondent to her parents. But, the parents, without considering the same, have abused the appellant in filthy language and took away their daughter from the matrimonial home on 25.02.2012 itself. The appellant had tried his best to join with his wife by trying to convince through the relatives of the respondent in Periyakulam, Dindigul District and the same was also ended in failure due to irresponsible behavior of the respondent and her parents.
5. On 03.10.2012, a female child was born to the respondent.
But, the same was not informed to the appellant and his family members. The appellant had tried to contact the respondent through phone. However, he could not contact her since February 2012. Therefore, the appellant was constrained to send a legal notice to the respondent on 26.06.2014 calling upon her for reunion with the appellant. The said notice was received by the respondent and she has sent a reply on 03.07.2014 through her counsel stating that she is ready to join with her husband, if he is willing and setting up a separate matrimonial home. Accordingly, the appellant has taken a flat for lease and informed the same to her counsel and relatives. But she did not come forward to live with the appellant. All the attempts made by the appellant for reunion with the respondent have ended in vain. The respondent has deserted the appellant without any valid reason for almost 2 ½ years. Due to her indifferent attitude, the appellant suffered mental agony. Hence, the appellant filed the above petition in HMOP. No.3 of 2017 before the learned Sub Judge, Gudiyatham seeking divorce on the ground of desertion.
6. Before the trial Court, during trial, in order to prove the case, the appellant has examined as many as three witnesses viz., P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked as many as eight documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On the side of the respondent, she examined herself as witness viz., D.W.1 and no documents was marked. After hearing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sub Judge, Gudiyatham dismissed the petition filed by the appellant seeking for divorce.
7. Challenging the said judgment dated 26.07.2017, the appellant/husband has filed an appeal before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore and the same was taken on file in HMCMA. No.13 of 2017. After peru
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.