Madras High Court
P.Deepa vs B.Karthick on 17 November, 2021
C.M.A.(MD) No.286 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.286 of 2016
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.3922 of 2016 & 7761 of 2021
P.Deepa ... Appellant
-vs-
B.Karthick ... Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 190 of the Family
Court Act, 1984, praying to set aside the order made in H.M.O.P.No.49 of
2015, on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, dated
15.03.2016.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham
For Respondent : Mr.K.Muthu Ganesa Pandian
_______________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.286 of 2016
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the Judgment and
Decree, dated 15.03.2016, passed in H.M.O.P.No.49 of 2015, on the file of the
Family Court, Tirunelveli, dissolving the marriage held between the appellant
and the respondent.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the
ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(i-a) & 13(1)(i-b) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the petitioner on the ground that he
married the respondent on 31.05.2012 at Madurai Kalavasal, as per the Hindu
rites and customs. The matrimonial home was set up at Chennai Velacherry.
They lived as husband and wife for two months and thereafter, the
respondent, under the pretext of her ill health, went to her parents home on
14.09.2012. Thereafter, on 28.09.2012, the respondent joined the petitioner's
family to go to Tirupathi and after the visit to Tirupathi, within a week's time,
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.286 of 2016
the parents of the respondent came to Velacherry and quarreled with the
petitioner and took the respondent back to Tirunelveli. After some
reconciliation, the respondent joined the petitioner on 08.11.2012. The said
reconciliation did not long-last. On 20.06.2013, the respondent was tested
positive for pregnancy and was taken to her parents' house. Thereafter, there
was no information about her health condition or contact with the petitioner.
It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was unable to concentrate on his
work due to the mental torture caused by the respondent and he was forced to
resign his job. He came down to Madurai and joined his parents to look after
the family business. On 25.02.2014, a male child was born to them. When
the petitioner and his parents went to see the child, they were humiliated and
sent out by the respondent's family. In the said circumstances, since the
attempt for mediation and conciliation got failed, notice was exchanged
between the parties and the petition for divorce was filed on the ground of
cruelty.
4. The respondent wife filed a counter contending that at the time of
marriage, there was a demand of dowry and after negotiation, the respondent
agreed to give 75 soverign of gold and thereafter, the marriage was solemnized.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.286 of 2016
The averments of temporary desertion and cruelty were stoutly denied by the
respondent. It is specifically alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner
was under the control of his mother and shattered her colourful dream about
the matrimonial life. There was a misrepresentation on the part of the
petitioner about his salary and financial status. The petitioner's family was
heavily indebted and to clear the debts, the petitioner was spending all his
income neglecting the respondent. Also, the petitioner had no interest in the
matrimonial life and had sexual intercourse rarely with the respondent.
Under the pressure of his parents, the petitioner resigned his job and taken
up his family business, which was under the heavy loss and thereafter, he has
chosen to ruin his future as well as the future of the respondent.
5. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and
16 documents were marked on his support. On behalf of the respondent,
apart from the respondent, three other witnesses were examined as R.W.1 to
R.W.4. Ex.R1 reply notice of the respondent was marked as Ex.R1.
6. The Trial Court, on considering the evidence adduced by the
parties, held that the witnesses examined by the respondent in support of her
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.286 of 2016
case, including her father, has not substantiated her case that she was
ignorant of even the very basic facts of the marital relationship between her
and the petitioner. Particularly, in respect of demand of rupees twenty lakhs
to meet out the family debt, the respondent herself has retracted. Whereas,
R.W.3 had spoken about it, which indicates and exposes the embellishment in
respect of the debts of the petitioner and the demand of Rs.20 lakhs. The Trial
Court has taken serious exception to the evidence of R.W.4, who is a
neighbouring shop owner of the petitioner's father, who had deposed about
intimate details about the parties' matrimonial relation.
7. The yet another ground highlighted by the Trial Court for allowing
the divorce petition is the serious allegation of the respondent about the
sexual interest of the petitioner, which led to an inference that the respondent
has no inclination to join and live with the petitioner. By making a wild
allegation against the petitioner and his family members that she was
subjected to cruelty, the Trial Court has concluded that there is no possibility
for reunion. Hence, the Trial Court dissolved the marriage of the petitioner
and the respondent.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.286 of 2016
8. Taking note of the fact that the respondent is taking care and
protection of the minor boy, the Trial Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.
10,000/- per month payable on or before tenth of every month. Aggrieved by
the said order of dissolution of marriage, the present appeal is filed by the
respondent on the ground that the order of the Trial Court is contrary to the
facts and settled principles of law.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
minor contradictions between the witnesses and the usual wear and tear in
the matrimonial relationship has been exaggerated and the Trial Court had
accepted the falsehood of the respondent and dissolved the marriage, as a
result, the respondent and the seven years old boy is left without any support,
care and protection. When the chance of reunion is very bright and possible,
the Trial Court has not explored the same. It is also submitted that the Trial
Court, without any valid reason, has granted divorce and the payment of
alimony of Rs.10,000/- is not sufficient to a boy considering the present day
escalation of price and cost of living.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.286 of 2016
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
strenuously argue that for trivial issues, the spouse got separated and due to
lack of counselling and mediation, the drift between the spouse got widened.
Even now, the respondent is ready to join with the petitioner, whereas the
petitioner, in his counter affidavit filed in the interlocutory application, has
reiterated his stand and expressed his unwillingness for reunion on the
grounds that the messages uploaded by the respondent in her Facebook
maligned him as well as his parents' dignity and it was a disrepute to his
family members. The present offer made by the respondent is only to further
harass him and his family members. But, there is no genuine attempt on her
part to join him. The respondent had no remorse for her conduct or expressed
regret all these years. Therefore, since the marriage has not reached sanctity
at any point of time, the dissolution of marriage is liable to be sustained.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant /
respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / petitioner.
12. This Court, after giving anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and the evidence placed before this Court, finds that the
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.286 of 2016
marriage took place on 31.05.2012 was in turmoil right from the beginning.
The petitioner has given a complaint before the All Women Police Station,
Madurai, on 28.10.2013 making serious allegations against the respondent
and her family members. This was closed after reconciliation between the
parties. In spite of this, the trouble in the matrimonial life did not fade or
stop. The Facebook chat (Ex.P3) do not support the present offer of the
respondent for reconciliation as genuine or workable. In such circumstances,
this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well settled order of the Trial
Court regarding the ground of cruelty.
13. However, taking note of the status of the respondent and the
earning capacity of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that from the
month of December, 2021 onwards, the petitioner shall pay a sum of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) per month towards the
maintenance of the minor boy, for which the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has no objection and in fact, he is also agreeable. It is made clear
that the said amount shall be deposited to the credit of the minor boy's
account on or before tenth of every English calender month without fail and
the respondent, being a mother and natural guardian of the minor boy, is
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.286 of 2016
entitled to withdraw the same for the welfare of the minor boy. The said
amount shall be modified or altered in due course as and when required and it
is open to the parties to approach the Family Court, if any modification is
required and the matter need not be referred back to this Court.
14. With the above observations, the civil miscellaneous appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
[S.V.N., J.] [G.J., J.]
17.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the
Judgment may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the Judgment that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the responsibility of
the advocate / litigant concerned.
krk
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.286 of 2016
To:
1.The Judge,
Family Court,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.286 of 2016
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
krk
C.M.A.(MD) No.286 of 2016
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.3922 of 2016 & 7761
of 2021
17.11.2021
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
