Madras High Court
R.Geetha Priya vs M.Vigneswaran on 7 August, 2024
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
C.M.A.No.1423 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 11.07.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.M.A.No.1423 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.7432 of 2021
R.Geetha priya ... Appellant
Vs.
M.Vigneswaran ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family
Court Act, 1994, against the order and decree dated 09.03.2020 passed in
O.P.No.1488 of 2017 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Abdul Hadi
For Respondent : Mr.K.Kannan
******
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 10
C.M.A.No.1423 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by J. NISHA BANU, J.)
The petitioner/husband has filed a petition, before the Court below,
seeking for dissolving of his marriage with the respondent under Section
13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same came to be allowed.
Aggrieved against such order, the respondent/ wife has preferred the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court.
2. Mr.J.Abdul Hadi, learned counsel for the appellant made the
following submissions:
2.1. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was
solemnized on 11.04.2016 at Thangam Maligai, No.11. T.H.Road. Chennai
600 081 as per Hindu rites and customs. There was no issues out of the
wedlock. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant
behaved as a dutiful wife and daughter-in-law to the respondent and his
family. The respondent and his mother often accused the appellant that the
dowry amount was very meagrely given for the appellant at the time of
marriage. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant's
husband never consulted or referred any matter of concern with the appellant
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
at the time of taking decisions and did not move well with her, with whole
heart and free will.
2.2. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the respondent/husband expressed his hatred feeling when the appellant
tried to move close with him. She also alleged that the respondent/ husband
is having an illicit relationship with one Anitha and when the same was
questioned by the appellant, the respondent behaved rudely and roughly with
her.
2.3. Having no other alternative, the appellant left the matrimonial
home on 20.12.2017 and stayed with her parents. According to the appellant,
though she was ready to live with the respondent, the respondent has filed a
petition in O.P.No.1488 of 2017 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court,
Chennai seeking to dissolve the marriage, which came to be allowed.
Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant has preferred the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court.
2.4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Court
below failed to consider that on the side of the respondent/husband, there was
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
no pleadings, documentary or oral evidence, let in to prove his contentions as
to mental cruelty, which was taken as a major ground in allowing the petition
by the Court below.
2.5. The learned counsel further contended that the Court below has
wrongly placed the burden of proof upon the appellant for proving mental
cruelty, which is in complete contradiction to the established rule that the
person alleging a fact should prove the fact. Therefore, the learned counsel
for the appellant seeks the interference of this Court to the order and decree
passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in O.P.No.1488 of
2017 dated 09.03.2020, thereby allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
3. Mr.K.Kannan, learned counsel for the respondent made the
following submissions:
3.1. The facts stated by the appellant are not disputed by the
respondent. After their marriage, the appellant/wife and the
respondent/husband started their marital life at the residence of the
respondent. The appellant neglected the respondent and his family members.
The appellant started to suspect the character of the respondent by saying that
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
his mobile phone is engaged. The appellant started to abuse the respondent
with vulgar words and she did not allow him to sleep and made unnecessary
quarrels with the respondent.
3.2. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the
appellant had stayed only two months in the matrimonial home and
thereafter, she went away, without giving any information and stayed at her
parents' house. The respondent has advised the appellant on many occasions
and he was very patient, thereby waiting for favourable circumstances, where
the appellant could mend her ways but all his expectations ended up in vain.
3.3. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that
the appellant refused for conjugal relationship with the respondent and
removed her 'Thali' and threw it on the face of the respondent. The appellant
also attempted to commit suicide by causing injury in her left hand and
threatened that she would commit suicide by leaving suicide note against the
respondent and his parents. Thereafter, the appellant left the matrimonial
home on 20.12.2017, without any valid reasons and stayed with her parents.
All efforts by the parents of the respondent for reunion ended in vain.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.4. The main ground raised by the respondent is that he cannot live
with the appellant, who has suicide temperament. The respondent never slept
peacefully, thinking about that the appellant may commit suicide at any time.
The mental trauma caused the respondent to file a petition in O.P.No.1488 of
2017 before the Court below seeking to dissolve the marriage. The learned
Judge, after analysing the witnesses and documents, allowed the petition by
passing a well-reasoned order, which does not warrant any interference of
this Court. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent prayed for
dismissing the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court.
5. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the appellant, the appellant
herself was examined as P.W.1 and 5 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to
Ex.P5 as exhibits. On the side of the respondent, the respondent/husband was
examined as R.W.1 and exhibits Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked. The Trial
Court, after analysing the evidences adduced on both sides, allowed the
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition.
6. On a perusal of the records adduced before this Court, there is no
dispute in respect of the relationship of the parties and the marriage that took
place on 11.04.2016. It is also an admitted fact that due to wedlock no child
was born to them. The husband, who is the respondent in this appeal, has
filed a petition before the Trial Court for granting decree of divorce alleging
that the appellant made wordy quarrel with him and she did not respect the
respondent and his family members and without any valid reasons, left from
the matrimonial home. Whereas, the allegations made by the respondent
herein is that the appellant suspected his character and levelled allegations
against him that he is having illicit relationship with one Anitha. Therefore,
the above said acts caused cruelty to the respondent.
7. In order to prove the case of the respondent, the
respondent/husband was examined was P.W.1 and in his deposition, he has
stated about the cruelty caused to him and he further deposed that the
appellant frequently made quarrel with him and left from the matrimonial
home without giving any valid reasons and also suspected his character. The
appellant, in her evidence before the Trial Court has deposed that her
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
husband/respondent had illicit relationship with Anitha.
8. The Trial Court after analysing the evidences, allowed the
petition and granted decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty by holding
that the appellant/respondent herself admitted that the husband sent whatsapp
message to one Anitha and there is no evidence to prove the same and there is
no evidence to prove the illicit relationship between her husband and the said
Anitha. The above said conduct of the appellant/wife has caused mental
cruelty to the respondent herein.
9. Though, the appellant/wife stated that she is ready and willing to
live with her husband, she had not taken any steps for reunion. It is the
contention of the respondent/husband that after so many Panchayat through
elders, the appellant/wife refused to return back to the matrimonial home.
Therefore, the above said acts of the appellant/wife caused mental cruelty to
the respondent/husband.
10. The Trial Court, after elaborate discussion, rightly held that the
appellant/wife had caused severe mental cruelty to the respondent/husband by
levelling disproved allegations of illicit relationship and also by attempting
to commit suicide, thereby causing mental cruelty to the respondent and
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
therefore found that the respondent/husband has proved the cruelty caused by
the Appellant/wife and granted decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty
which does not warrant any interference.
11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has no merits and
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No
costs.
(J.N.B.J) (P.D.B.J)
07.08.2024
J.NISHA BANU.,J.
and
P.DHANABAL., J.
sts
Internet : Yes/No
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
sts
To:
The Principal Judge,
Family Court,
Chennai.
Judgment made in
Dated:
07.08.2024
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
