Advocates:
['M/S M V KRISHNAN', 'M/S V RAGHAVACHARI', '', 'V SRIMATHI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.09.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

C.M.S.A.No.41 of 2011

V.Saritha Kumari

.. Appellant/Respondent

Versus

S.Anbarasu

.. Respondent/Petitioner

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been filed under

Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code read with Section 28 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the judgment and decree

dated 21.03.2011 made in C.M.A.No.9 of 2006 on the file of

learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, reversing the

judgment and decree dated 27.04.2006 made in MOP No.3 of 2003

on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.

For Petitioner

: Mr.M.V.Krishnan

For Respondent

: Mr.V.Raghavachari

O R D E R

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing due to

COVID-19 pandemic.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is directed

against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.03.2011 made

in C.M.A.No.9 of 2006 on the file of learned Principal

District Judge, Krishnagiri, reversing the judgment and decree

dated 27.04.2006 made in M.O.P.No.3 of 2003 on the file of

learned Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.

3. Mr.M.V.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/wife submitted that the marriage between the

appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 13.11.1997 in

Billakottai

Village,

Krishnagiri

Taluk,

and

after

solemnization of marriage, they were living only for a period

of 41 days and during such short period, there was a demand

for dowry, however, parents of appellant/wife did not meet out

such demand, as he had demanded Maruti Car. Thereafter, she

was ill-treated by her husband and his family members.

Subsequently, the appellant/wife gave a police complaint

before All Women Police Station, Bargur, and the same was

registered for an offence under Sections 498(A) and 506(ii) of

Page numbers

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The

respondent/husband filed M.O.P.No.32 of 1998 seeking for

restitution conjugal rights before the learned Principal

Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. The appellant/wife also gave

further police complaint before Kalasipalayam Police Station,

Bangalore, for demanding dowry and ill-treatment, however, the

said complaint was transferred to All Women Police Station,

Bargur, and registered for an offence under Sections 498(A)

and 506(ii) of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. But, the said criminal case, after full

trial, was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

krishnagiri, on 31.05.2002 passed in C.C.No.493 of 2001,

acquitting the respondent/husband and his family members and

aggrieved by the same, when revision was filed in

Crl.R.C.No.1442 of 2002, the same was also dismissed by this

Court.

4.

While

the matter stood

as above,

the

respondent/husband has filed M.O.P.No.3 of 2003 seeking for

divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty, more

particularly, in view of criminal case filed against him as

stated supra. Since this Court in catena of decisions has

held that mere filing of criminal case cannot be construed as

a ground for divorce, learned trial Court has rightly

dismissed the divorce petition making it clear that no case

was made out for accepting the cruelty by wife against her

husband and against which, when C.M.A.No.9 of 2006 was filed,

learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, after

considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both

parties, allowed the appeal by reversing the judgment and

decree passed by the learned trial Court. The reasonings given

by the learned first appellate Court that the marriage was

held against the will of wife and that she left the

matrimonial home with the consent of her husband are all

erroneous and therefore, the same cannot be accepted, for,

a