Madras High Court
Premlal Biju vs Manoranjitham on 29 March, 2022
C.M.A.Nos.733 and 741 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A. Nos. 733 and 741 of 2022
and
C.M.P. Nos. 5358 and 5361 of 2022
Premlal Biju ... Appellant in both appeals
Versus
Manoranjitham ... Respondent in both appeals
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section
19 of the Family Court Act 1984 to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
16.02.2021 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family
Court, Coimbatore, in HMOP Nos. 570 of 2017 and 611 of 2014.
In both the appeals;
For Appellant : Mr. B.Hari Krishnan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.733 and 741 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J.]
These appeals are directed against the common Judgment passed by
the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court,
Coimbatore, in HMOP Nos.570 of 2017 and 611 of 2014, dated 16.02.2021.
2.The respondent is the wife of the appellant. The respondent/wife
filed HMOP No.611 of 2014 seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of
cruelty and desertion. The appellant/husband filed HMOP No.570 of 2017
seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court, allowed the petition
filed by the respondent/wife and granted a decree of divorce and dismissed
the petition filed by the appellant/husband seeking conjugal rights.
Challenging the same, these appeals have been filed by the
appellant/husband.
3.The case of the respondent/wife before the Family Court is that the
marriage between her and the appellant was solemnized on 01.11.2004 at
Palakkad as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, they lived at
Palakkad. At the time of marriage, her parents gifted 50 sovereigns of gold
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.733 and 741 of 2022
ornaments, Rs.50,000/- in cash, Rs.10,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle and
Rs.5,000/- for purchasing a coin box phone. The respondent was asked to
continue her job at Coimbatore even after marriage as the appellant did not
have any permanent income. Out of their wedlock, on 15.12.2007, a male
child was born. While so, during the subsistence of the matrimonial life, the
appellant demanded Rs.75,000/- in cash and 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments
from the respondent to enable him to do money lending business. Further,
the appellant's sister harassed the respondent physically and mentally by
making comments on her appearance. It is alleged that during June 2008, the
appellant beat the respondent. The appellant's father also threatened to foist
a false case of theft against the respondent's brother, who had come to visit
her. In effect, she was abused, beaten up and tortured for not bringing money
from her father. The appellant and his family members also compelled the
respondent to go for a checkup with a psychiatrist alleging that she is
mentally disturbed. The respondent, unable to bear the cruel acts of the
appellant and his family members, filed a complaint under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act. Irked by the same, the appellant
physically and verbally assaulted the respondent, hence, the respondent was
constrained to leave the matrimonial home. Therefore, she is entitled for
divorce.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.733 and 741 of 2022
4.Before the Family Court, the appellant/husband categorically denied
the allegations made in the divorce petition. According to him, the
respondent portrayed an indifferent attitude towards him and his family
members, which resulted in matrimonial disputes. The appellant was
employed in Sakthi College at Palakkad besides taking private tuitions and
earning Rs.7,000/- per month. The mother of the appellant died in the year
1999 itself and hence, the claim of the respondent that she was taken by the
appellant and her mother-in-law to a sorceress, is false. The respondent had
deserted the appellant and settled in Coimbatore without any just and
sufficient cause. The appellant is always ready and willing to reunite with
the respondent.
5.Before the Family Court, to establish the case, on the side of the
respondent/wife, she examined herself as P.W.1 besides examining two other
witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. On the side of
the appellant/husband, he examined himself as P.W.1 and produced Ex.R1 to
R7. Apart from the above documents, Ex.X.1 was marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.733 and 741 of 2022
6.The Family Court, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the
parties, held that the respondent/wife was subjected to cruelty by her
husband and his family members and therefore, she is entitled for a decree of
divorce and dismissed the Original Petition filed by the appellant for
restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court also directed the
appellant/husband to return the articles of the respondent to her. Assailing
the aforesaid orders, these appeals have been filed.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/husband contended that the
Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record
and the respondent/wife failed to establish her case, but we do not find force
in the argument of the learned counsel.
8.A perusal of the records would show that wife gave evidence as
P.W.1 and narrated the averments made in the Original Petition. P.W.2, her
father and her neighbour P.W.3 corroborated her evidence. The main
allegation raised by the respondent is that the appellant-husband demanded
50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.75,000/- in cash to be brought from
her parents so as to enable him to pledge the gold ornaments in bank for
lesser interest and to utilise the amount to do money lending business which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.733 and 741 of 2022
would fetch higher interest amount. The further allegation is that the sister
of the appellant, on 20.06.2008, called the respondent a prostitute's daughter
when she intended to make a phone call to her parents. These incidents were
narrated by the respondent in her chief examination by way of proof
affidavit. The respondent also further deposed that during July 2008, she
was beaten and compelled to go for consultation with a psychiatrist. When
this was informed to her parents, the father of the respondent, P.W.2 came to
the matrimonial home, during which, he was threatened and abused by the
appellant and his family members. This was clearly narrated by P.W.2 in his
deposition.
9.To prove that the appellant had demanded cash and jewels, the
respondent marked Ex.P5, Complaint dated 20.06.2008, in which, she has
clearly stated that the appellant, by demanding cash and jewels, is harassing
her and therefore, sought the intervention of the police officials attached to
the Office of the Inspector of Police, Palakkad. This would only indicate that
all was not well in the matrimonial life between the appellant and
respondent, purportedly due to the demand made by the appellant for cash
and jewels. This is further fortified by Ex.P6-Domestic Incident Report, in
which, it was clearly reported that the appellant threatened the respondent to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.733 and 741 of 2022
bring Rs.75,000/- to enable him to do business. In the cross examination of
P.W.2 as well as P.W3, nothing credible could be brought out in support of
the claim of the appellant.
10.Yet another averment made by the respondent is that the appellant
and his family members did not permit the respondent to speak to her family
members over phone. Even if any one of the family members visited the
matrimonial home, they were not treated well, which had caused acute
mental cruelty to the respondent. In fact, P.W.1 deposed that when her
brother came to meet her in the matrimonial home, the father of the appellant
threatened that he would foist a false theft case against her brother, if she
visits the matrimonial home. This was not specifically denied by the
appellant in the counter statement. The Family Court, in consideration of the
above unrebuttable evidence adduced on the side of the respondent, has
come to a definite conclusion that the respondent was subjected to
matrimonial cruelty by the appellant and his family members. We are fully in
agreement with such a conclusion arrived at by the Family Court.
11.In the light of the above facts, we find no reason to upset the well
reasoned Judgment of the trial Court. Hence, these Civil Miscellaneous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.733 and 741 of 2022
Appeals are dismissed as devoid of merit and Judgment and Decree dated
16.02.2021 made in HMOP Nos.570 of 2017 and 611 of 2014 on the file of
the Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Coimbatore shall
stand confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are also dismissed.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [V.S.G.,J.]
29.03.2022
skn
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
To
1.The Additional Principal Family Court,
Coimbatore.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.733 and 741 of 2022
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
skn
COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A.Nos.733 and 741 of 2022
and
C.M.P. Nos. 5358 and 5361 of 2022
29.03.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
