Madras High Court
Angala Eswari vs A.Balamurugan on 8 November, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.976 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.M.A(MD)No.976 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)No.10203 of 2017
Angala Eswari ...Appellant
.vs.
A.Balamurugan ...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the
Family Courts Act, 1984 to set aside the judgment and decree passed by
the Family Court Judge, Madurai in H.M.O.P.No.542 of 2013 on
06.06.2017 and allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
For Appellant :Mr.M.Jothi Basu
For Respondent :Mr.B.Chandran
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.976 of 2017
JUDGMENT
************
[Judgment of the Court was made by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.]
The appellant is the wife. The respondent is the husband. The
respondent / husband filed H.M.O.P.No.542 of 2013 before the Family
Court, Madurai seeking dissolution of marriage solemnized between the
parties on 20.02.2005 on the ground of cruelty. The said application was
filed under Section 13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act.
2. The main contention of the respondent / husband before the
Family Court is that she has behaved like a insane person, she refused
and also failed to take care of the petitioner as well as the children, she
picked up unnecessary quarrel with him and also with neighbours, she
behaved unusual which caused more mental and physical cruelty to the
petitioner, in spite of repeated request, the respondent / wife refused to
return back the matrimonial home.
3. The appellant / wife filed counter denying the averments made
in the petition. She also denying the contention that she was driven away
from the matrimonial home along with the children.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.976 of 2017
4. During trial, petitioner / husband was examined as P.W.1 and
marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. The respondent / wife was examined as R.W.1
and marked Ex.R1- the complaint given before the police.
5. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the
learned Family Judge, Madurai has rendered a categorial finding that the
factum of the marriage and birth of two children of which, one is special
child are not in dispute. Whether the alleged complaint given by the
appellant / wife amounts to cruelty. In paragraphs 9 & 10 of the
judgment, the learned Judge has considered the act of the appellant / wife
and held that the said act is amounting to cruelty and has also observed
that R.W.1 in her cross-examination had admitted that she left the
children with the petitioner and also admitted that she left the home on
her own. Hence, the learned Judge has held that the act of the wife
amounts to cruelty. Accordingly, granted decree of divorce. Aggrieved
against the said judgment and decree of divorce, the wife has preferred
the present appeal.
6. It is seen that the joint compromise memo, entered between the
parties signed by both parties and respective advocates, has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.976 of 2017
7. When the joint compromise memo was filed, the same was
posted before the then Division Bench on 11.10.2018, whereby, the
Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:-
“Today, both the appellant/ wife and the
respondent/husband appeared in person before this Court.
2.A joint memorandum of compromise, entered into
between the parties in the matrimonial dispute, has been
filed today. As per which, the respondent/husband had
agreed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) cash to the appellant/wife and agreed to return all the
household articles given at the time of marriage. He had
also agreed to return 7 sovereigns of jewels given at the time
of marriage.
3.Today, in the open Court, the said cash and the
jewels were returned to the appellant/wife, which is also
acknowledged.
4.It is seen that there are two minor children born out
of their marriage by name Saravanakumar, aged 12 years and
Loganathan, aged 10 years. The minor Saravanakumar is a
special child and both the children are with the father and
therefore, this Court was concerned about the welfare of the
minor children and directed the respondent/husband to
deposit atleast Rs.50,000/- each in the names of the minors.
The respondent/wife, who is present personally, also agrees
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.976 of 2017
for the same.
5.The appellant/wife had complained that she could
not see her children and all her attempts were failed by the
respondent/husband.
6.Today, it is agreed that the mother would be allowed
to see her children on every alternate Sundays between 10.00
a.m., and 03.00 p.m., at the respondent's house and both the
parties have agreed for the same.
7.Post the matter on 25.10.2018 'for compliance' as
indicated above. ”
8. We find that the joint compromise memo entered between the
parties has been taken on record and as per the undertaking in the joint
compromise memo, the respondent / husband handed over the cash and
jewels to the appellant / wife, which was also acknowledged at
paragraph-3 of the said order, dated 11.10.2018. It appears that the wife
had complained that she could not see her children and all her attempts
were failed and hence, the Division Bench has ordered the mother would
be allowed to see her children on every alternate Sundays and also the
Division Bench has directed the husband (father of the minor child) to
deposit Rs.50,000/- each in the name of the minor children for their
welfare.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.976 of 2017
9. For reporting compliance of the deposit of Rs.50,000/- each in
the name of the minors and allowing the wife (mother of the children) to
see the children, the matter was posted for compliance.
10. In view of the order passed on 11.10.2018, we find that the
joint compromise memo was already taken on record and pursuant to the
joint compromise memo, the husband paid the amount and returned the
jewels. As per the order passed by this Court, we noticed that the wife
also acknowledged the receiving of amount and jewels and hence, we
find that the joint compromise memo entered between the parties filed
before the Court on 11.10.2018 ends. The learned counsel for the
appellant states that the respondent/husband has not deposited the
amount as ordered by this Court.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent states that
the said amount has already been deposited on 23.10.2018 itself. He
further stated that the wife has not come to see the children. Now the
copy of the Fixed Deposit in the name of the children also filed. We
record the compliance on the part of the husband.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.976 of 2017
12. We find that the matter is pending for compliance of the order
dated 11.10.2018 as extrated supra. Hence, the appeal does not require
any further orders. As per the order of this Court dated 11.10.2018 if the
wife is willing to see the children they can do so as stated supra.
13. With these observations, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
also closed.
[T.K.R.,J.] [P.B.B.,J.]
08.11.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
am
To
The Family Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.976 of 2017
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.
AND
P.B.BALAJI,J.
am
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.976 of 2017
08.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
