Madras High Court
V.Baskaran vs V.Devasena on 8 March, 2021
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 08.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2007
V.Baskaran
.. Appellant
Vs.
V.Devasena
.. Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 28 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, praying to set aside the judgment of the Court below
dated 09.08.2006 in HMOP.No.37 of 2003 on the file of the learned
Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu,.
For Appellant : Mr.L.Poompavai
For Respondents : Mr.C.Prasanna Venkatesh
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2007
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is the petitioner in HMOP.No.37 of 2003.
He filed the said petition against his wife/respondent under Section 13(1a)
(1b) of Hindu Marriage Act, praying for the decree of divorce by resolving
the marriage solemnized on 26.02.1999. The wife/respondent contested the
case. After full trial, the trial Court dismissed the application as no merits.
Aggrieved by that, he come forward this appeal.
2. Point for consideration:
(i) Whether the trial Judge failed to appreciate the facts and
circumstances and erroneously dismissed the application filed by this
appellant?
(ii) Whether the trial Court failed to observe that the wife is not
interested to live with her husband nor she has taken any steps for Restitution
of Conjugal Rights?
(iii) Whether the trial Judge committed error in rejecting the
conduct of the respondent, which caused mental agony to this appellant,
while they lived together?;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2007
3. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent is
admitted. As per the Hindu Rights, on 26.02.1999, the marriage was
performed and after that, they lived together in the appellant's house along
with his mother. It is also admitted fact that at the time of marriage, the
respondent was worked as a teacher in a private school and after the marriage
proposal she resigned from the job. Both parties lived together only for ten
months after the marriage. As per the contention of husband/appellant from
the day of their marriage, the respondent/wife is always not in cordial terms
with him and his mother. Several times ill-treated him and his mother in
front of others. Further, she was depressed due to the resignation of the job
and always threatened him that she would commit suicide and if she was not
allowed to go to the job. Even, the family members of the respondent also
advised her to rectify her misbehaviour, but she never corrected herself. On
29.08.1999, when the appellant attended the respondent's sister's marriage
function at Panruti, she abused him in front of all relatives. He would further
submit that in the year 2000 her 3rd sister's marriage was performed, at the
time, she voluntarily quarreled with the appellant and she left the matrimonial
home voluntarily on 24.01.2000 with her belongings including jewels and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2007
other ornaments. Thereafter, mediation steps were taken, but she refused to
come back. She left the matrimonial home without any reason and also her
conduct caused mental agony to him. Hence, the appellant approached the
Court for divorce.
4. The respondent totally denied all the allegation levelled
against her. As per her contention, she resigned the job at the request of her
husband and she lived with him peacefully. At the time of her sister's
marriage, her father gave money to her sister to purchased a land. Aggrieved
by that, her husband/appellant demanded money in fact at the time of
marriage 35 Sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.1,50,000/- and silver articles
were given. The respondent refused to adhere the alleged demand made by
him. Thereafter, attitude of her husband and mother-in-law was changed and
ill-treated her, forcibly, she was dropped at the bus stand by her husband.
She would submit that her jewels and Educational certificate and other
belongings are still in her husband's house. Even, panchayators advised her
husband to live together but he refused to take her back and also imposed a
condition to return of her belongings if she agrees for divorce. However, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2007
respondent expressed her willingness to live with her husband. In the year
2006, she got a Government Job and working as a Government teacher.
5. On hearing both sides and the evidence on record, the trial
Court found that there is no merit in the allegation levelled by the husband
against the wife. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Hence, he prefers
this appeal.
6. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the
appellant submits that from the date of the marriage, the respondent very
much interested to go for job and always expressed her displeasure that she is
not interested in the matrimonial life with this appellant. The appellant also
stated various circumstances i.e., that she always ill-treated him and his
mother in front of the relatives and refused to cohabit with him that she
depressed due to resignation of her job, she always in the habit of crying at
the night time with depression and also threatened the appellant that she
would commit suicide if she was not allowed to go for a job. Even during
the Panchayat, she was advised to live with her husband but she refused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2007
According to appellant all these conduct of respondent/wife caused mental
agony to him. So, he prayed divorce.
7. Since the husband approached the Court for relief of divorce
on the ground of cruelty he is bound to prove all these facts. At least, he
would have examined anyone of the Panchayatdars, before the trial Court, but
he failed to do so. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the
appellant relied upon the following judgments:
(i) 2010 (3) CTC 785 in Jayakumari Vs.Balachander
(ii) 2012(3) CTC 75 in Pankaj Mahajan Vs.Dimple @ Kajal
and submit that the respondent in this case also left the matrimonial home
with an intention to desert the appellant. Besides, she always ill-treated and
threatened him to commit suicide, which caused mental agony of this
appellant, but the trial Court without appreciating this fact erroneously
dismissed the petition and learned counsel prays to allow the appeal.
8. The judgments relied by the appellant counsel do not apply to
the facts and circumstances of the case, for the reason that the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2007
always expressed her willingness to live with her husband, but he refused to
take her back to the matrimonial home. Further, the allegation levelled by the
husband about alleged conduct of the respondent has not been proved with
any other material evidence. On seeing the facts, it reveals that at the time of
the second sister's marriage of respondent, there was a misunderstanding
between the appellant and the respondent due to the payments of
Rs.2,00,000/- to her sister's family. Though he alleged that there was no co-
habitation, but during the course of his cross examination admits that their
marriage was consummated.
9. After the marriage, the respondent lived with her husband,
without going to job. As a elder daughter of the family, even she accepted to
resign her job for the purpose of her marriage. The allegation levelled against
the respondent are usual in the normal life between the husband and wife.
Due to their ego, both have lost the value of the marital life. The trial Court
rightly observed all these facts and circumstances of the case and dismissed
the application. There is no merits in this case. Accordingly, the question of
laws are answered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2007
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.,
ub
10. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
08.03.2021
ub
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2007
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
