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

2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74132

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, Mr Justice K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ
Ksalaiselvi – Appellant
Versus
A.S.Sivakumar – Respondent
C.M.A(MD)Nos.65 & 66 of 2024



Advocates:
Mr.T.K.Gopalan, Mr.J.Bharathan

False allegations and ongoing criminal proceedings can constitute mental cruelty, justifying divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(ia) and 9 - Divorce and restitution of conjugal rights - The husband filed for divorce citing cruelty due to false allegations made by the wife, including threats and demands for dowry, while the wife sought restitution of conjugal rights - The trial court allowed the divorce petition and dismissed the wife's petition, considering subsequent events including a murder case involving the wife's family - The court emphasized that false allegations and ongoing criminal proceedings constituted mental cruelty, making reconciliation impossible. (Paras 4, 10, 11, 14)

(B) Cruelty - Definition and scope - The court reiterated that false accusations against a spouse can amount to mental cruelty, particularly when they are unsubstantiated and lead to reputational harm. (Paras 10.1, 10.2, 10.3)

(C) Subsequent events - The court held that subsequent events can be considered in divorce proceedings to assess the possibility of reconciliation and the conduct of the parties. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The marriage occurred on 01.02.2009, with a child born in 2010. Disputes arose leading to the husband filing for divorce in 2015, citing the wife's threats and false allegations. The wife countered with a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, claiming harassment and dowry demands. Subsequent events included a murder case involving the wife's family.

Findings of Court:
The trial court found the wife's conduct constituted cruelty, allowing the husband's divorce petition and dismissing the wife's petition for restitution.

Issues: The court addressed whether the trial court correctly dismissed the wife's petition for restitution and allowed the husband's divorce petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the wife's false allegations and the ensuing criminal proceedings demonstrated a breakdown of the marriage, justifying the divorce. The court affirmed that mental cruelty can arise from unsubstantiated accusations.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

COMMON JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by

MR.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J.]

Both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant/wife as against the fair and decreetal orders made in H.M.O.P.No.370 of 2014 dated 29.12.2021 and H.M.O.P.No.605 of 2015 dated 29.12.2021 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai.

The appellant is the wife and the respondent is the husband. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as 'husband' and 'wife'.

2. The case of the husband:

2.1.The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 01.02.2009. Out of the marriage, a female child was born. After that there was some dispute between both parties and the same reached to the extent of the attacking the respondent. The conduct of the appellant is disagreeable. Also she frequently threatened the respondent that she would commit suicide and thereby instilling a fear in the mind of the respondent that he would be put in jail. Further, she was not taking care of her own child and also causing disturbance in her studies by interfering in her studies in the school by talking disrespectfully with the teachers and not maintaining good relationship with the teachers. Hence the study of the appellant’s daughter got affected. Apart from that, the appellant frequently took money from the family of the husband and gave it to her family without the knowledge of the husband. Further it is alleged that the appellant persistently demanded partition of the property from respondent's father and separation of the property so as to leave it with her. With this controversy, the appellant had left the matrimonial home and started living separately. After that the respondent apprehended fear for his life at the instance of the appellant, his brother-in-law and the mother-in-law and her family members. Hence without any possibility for reunion, he filed the divorce petition before the jurisdiction family Court on 30.05.2015.

2.2.The case of the wife:

The wife filed counter statement in H.M.O.P.No.370 of 2014 stating that at the time of marriage her parents had given 30 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.4,00,000/- worth silver articles. The husband is running a cement and building material wholesale business and a fertilizer shop. He is owning a shopping complex. He is owning a lorry and he is getting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per month. The allegation that she frequently harassed the husband, that she was not taking care of the child and beating the child are, false. It is false to state that she threatened to commit suicide by trying to self immolate using kerosene and that she was admitted in hospital. She denied the entire averments that her husband gave Rs.30,000/- to her aunt and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to her father. Her father died on 24.10.2012 and after death of her father, she demanded jewels from the family of the husband. Hence, the husband returned 4 sovereigns of gold. Since, the financial condition of her family worsened due to the death of her father, a family property was sold in order to settle the marriage loan. Thereafter, on 25.05.2014, the husband and his family members demanded more dowry and started to beat her indiscriminately and she was forced out of the matrimonial house. Therefore, she lodged a complaint with All Women Police Station, Thirupparankundram. Only after she approached the Court below, that FIR was registered on 23.07.2014. After coming to know about the complaint, her husband filed H.M.O.P.No.370 of 2014 for divorce. Therefore, she filed H.M.O.P.No.605 of 2015 for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, she seeks for dismissal of the divorce petition and prayed to allow this petition.

2.3 . Subsequent events that happened during the H.M.O.P. , proceedings:

During the pendency of the above divorce proceedings and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the criminal case preferred by the wife was investigated by the jurisdiction police and the same culminated in filing of the final report. It was tak

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