Madras High Court
Jestin Oliver Raj vs Shiny Christiya on 26 October, 2021
C.M.A.No.3006 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A.No.3006 of 2021
Jestin Oliver Raj ...
Appellant
Vs.
Shiny Christiya ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 55 of the Indian
Divorce Act to set aside the fair order and decreetal order passed by the Family
Court Judge, Cuddalore in I.D.O.P.No.247 of 2019 dated 24.03.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Raja
*****
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3006 of 2021
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.]
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the Family
Court, Cuddalore passed in I.D.O.P.No.247 of 2019 and I.A.No.967 of 2019
dated 24.03.2021.
2.The appellant and the respondent are the husband and wife. The
marriage between them was solemnized on 21.01.2018 at Infant Jesus Church at
Srimushnam as per the Christian customs. The respondent filed original petition
seeking divorce under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act to dissolve the marriage
solemnized on 21.01.2018. It is her case that at the time of marriage, her parents
provided 20 sovereign of gold, vessels, furnitures and motorcycle all worth about
Rs.12 Lakh as Sridhana. At the relevant time, they were informed that the
appellant/husband was aged about 25 years and he was working in a private
concern. Subsequently, they came to know that he was 32 years and he was also
unemployed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3006 of 2021
3.The respondent/wife made allegations of cruelty against the
appellant/husband contending that on 10.03.2018, she was beaten by her husband
and she suffered injuries. On 25.04.2018, the appellant/husband gave a complaint
at Sethiathope All Women Police Station through his junior paternal uncle, who
was working as a police constable at Kammapuram Police Station. Subsequently,
an enquiry was held, but the appellant/husband did not appear. On 07.08.2018,
the respondent/wife lodged a complaint to the Chief Minister's Special Cell and
the Director General of Police against the appellant/husband. In that enquiry also,
the appellant has not appeared. It is also stated that when she suffered injuries
inflicted by the appellant/husband, he attempted to have physical relationship
against her wishes.
4.The appellant/husband, before the Trial Court in his counter, has
categorically denied the allegations made against him. According to him, as per
Christian customs, before the marriage, full particulars of the appellant were given
to the Church and they were also red out and it was put on notice board. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3006 of 2021
further stated that when the respondent/wife was staying in her parents' house, she
inflicted burn injury herself. The junior paternal uncle of the appellant/husband
has not role in the events, which had taken place in their family and the appellant
is ready and willing to live with the respondent/wife and prayed for dismissal of
the divorce petition.
5.Interim Application was filed under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act
for return of the jewels and the sirdhana articles from the appellant/husband.
6.In order to establish their case, the respondent/wife examined herself as
P.W.1 and produced Exs.P.1 to P.9. The appellant/husband was examined as
R.W.1 and he marked Exs.R.1 to R.18.
7.The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, held
that the respondent/wife is entitled for divorce and also directed the
appellant/husband to return the articles. Assailing the order, the present appeal
has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3006 of 2021
8.Mr.R.Raja, learned counsel for the appellant/husband contended that the
Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and
also failed to note that the respondent/wife sustained burn injury in her parental
home on 26.01.2018, which was proved by the appellant through Ex.R.2. It is
next contended that the appellant was working as a Senior Technician in
Hofincons infotech & Industrial Services Private Limited (A Division of Quess
Corp Ltd) at Chennai from the year 2019 and the same was proved through
Ex.R.3. When the respondent/wife had failed to establish her case, the Family
Court ought not to have granted divorce.
9.We have heard the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and perused the materials available on record.
10.In the instant case, the relationship of the parties are not in dispute and it
is an admitted fact that the marriage between them was solemnized on
21.01.2018. From the perusal of the records, it is evident that there is no cordial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3006 of 2021
relationship between the parties from they day one of the marriage and it was also
found that the marriage was not consummated. In the evidence, P.W.1 has clearly
stated that in view of the events taken place in the family, there is no possibility
for reunion.
11.Though the respondent/wife sought divorce on the ground of cruelty,
taking note of the undisputed facts that the marriage between the appellant and
the respondent was not consummated and there is no possibility for reunion, we
find no reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Trial Court. This
appeal has no merit, hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed as devoid
of merits. However, there will be no order as to cost.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [V.S.G.,J.]
26.10.2021
skn
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3006 of 2021
To
1. Family Court Judge, Cuddalore.
2.V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3006 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
skn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A.No.3006 of 2021
26.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
