IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.04.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2497 of 2016 Ram Venuprasad ... Appellant -vs-

Shilpa Pillai ... Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, to set aside the order and decree dated 30.08.2016 in O.P.No.1606 of

2014, on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai.

For Appellant : Ms.R.S.Akila For Respondent : No appearance

J U D G M E N T

[Judgment of the Court delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.]

The husband whose petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty was dismissed by the learned Family Judge is on Appeal.

2. The respondent was served through e-mail and notice was also addressed to the counsel for the respondent at London which was also delivered to the counsel. Despite such service, the respondent is not appearing either in person or through counsel duly instructed.

3. The parties were married on 10.12.2011 and they moved to United Kingdom, since the husband was employed in the Common Wealth Secretariat in United Kingdom. A female child was born of the wed-lock on 12.01.2013. Differences arose between the parties when they were living in London which led to the various Police complaints being lodged by the wife as against the husband. Once such complaint that was lodged on 21.06.2013 resulted in the arrest of the husband by the London Metropolitan Police, the Police also took the DNA swabbed as well as the other tests to establish the identity of the husband. However, he was let off after the police found that there was no substance in the complaint. The mother of the wife, who was living in Bombay, had also made complaint to the Police in India on various occasions contending that the cumulative effect of these complaints would amount to mental cruelty, the husband sought for divorce.

4. The wife resisted the claim primarily contending that the Family Courts in Chennai do not have jurisdiction. According to her, it is only the Court situate in Central London which have jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Apart from denying the allegations of cruelty, the wife claimed that the husband had committed cruelty and has physically abused her on various occasions. It was also the contention of the wife that she had launched proceedings for divorce in the Courts in London on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

5. We are now informed that the Courts in London, viz. the Central Family Court in London has granted a decree for divorce on 21.12.2017 dissolving the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y.Narasimha Rao and Others v. Y.Venkatalakhmi and another, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 451, the said decree granted on a ground which is not available under the Hindu Marriage Act, cannot be recognized in India.

6. On the pleadings the learned Family Judge framed the following issues:

1. Whether this court has got jurisdiction to try this OP; and

2. Whether a ground of cruelty is made out for the grant of divorce in favour of the petitioner.

7. On the side of the petitioner, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P18 were marked. On the side of the respondent, the respondent was examined as R.W.1 and her brother was examined as R.W.2. and Exhibits R1 to R23 were marked.

8. The learned Family Judge on the consideration of the evidence concluded that mental cruelty has not been made out. This conclusion is arrived at on the basis that the husband has not produced records to show that the complaints lodged by the wife before the London Metropolitan Police are false. Aggrieved the husband is on Appeal.

9. We have heard Ms.R.S.Akila, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

10. The learned counsel would contend that the Trial Court had overlooked the fact that the wife had in her counter itself admitted that she had filed a petition on the ground of