Madras High Court
Kiran Ravi vs Geethu on 28 October, 2024
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
C.M.A(MD)No.844 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:28.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
C.M.A(MD)No.844 of 2023
Kiran Ravi : Appellant
Vs.
Geethu : Respondent
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the
Family Court Act, 1984, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in
H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2022, dated 20.07.2023, by the Family Court,
Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For Respondents : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan
JUDGMENT
The appellant/husband filed this civil miscellaneous appeal
challenging the order passed by the learned Family Court, Tirunelveli, in
H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2022, dated 20.07.2023, whereby the respondent/wife
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the
restitution of the conjugal rights.
2.The respondent filed the petition in H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2022 for
the relief of restitution of conjugal rights with the following averments:-
2.1.The respondent married the appellant on 03.12.2017 as per
Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage, both lived in the
appellant's house situated in Kerala, as a joint family along with her
father-in-law and mother-in-law. There she came to know that they were
following Christianity. The appellant and his family members insisted her
to follow Christianity. In such a situation she became pregnant and they
attempted to abort also. They also continuously insisted her to follow
Christianity and asked her to come to church. Therefore, on 30.07.2018,
she made a complaint before the All women Police Station, Tirunelveli.
The police officer intervened and asked the parties to for a compromise
and hence, the respondent went to the appellant's house and the appellant
did not trouble her till the birth of the child. On 21.09.2018, a male child
was born to them. After that, they insisted her to convert to Christian
religion. Therefore, there was some discord and hence, on 10.05.2019,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the respondent left the matrimonial home. Thereafter, she lived along
with the child. Both the appellant and his family members never came to
see the child. In the said circumstances, the appellant also filed a petition
in H.M.O.P.No.468 of 2020 before the Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram, against the respondent for the relief of restitution
of conjugal rights and the same was dismissed on 8.10.2021. Even after
that the appellant refused to live with the respondent. Therefore, she filed
a petition for the restitution of the conjugal rights.
3.The appellant filed a counter denying the allegation of attempt to
convert her. He specifically denied the said fact and pleaded that he and
his family members never insisted the respondent to profess Christianity.
He also stated that they professed only Hindu religion. All the customary
festivals were conducted as per Hindu rituals including the baby shower
function. In the said circumstances, he also stated that the respondent
made a complaint against him and his family members. Thereby, she
caused cruelty to him and hence, he initially filed the restitution petition
in the interest of the child and matrimonial life. Subsequently, after the
intervention of the police officers also, she did not change her character
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and she insisted him for a separate residence. Since the appellant was
living with his parents, he refused to arrange a separate residence and
hence, she picked up quarrel with him and made false allegation against
him. Even after the delivery, she was going on demanding separate
residence and he arranged a rented house and they lived in the rented
house from 08.02.2019 to 05.05.2019. At that time, the respondent did
not discharge her duty as a dutiful wife and even she did not do
household work. She never would cook she insisted to buy food from the
hotel. Therefore, in the said circumstances, she herself voluntarily left the
matrimonial home on 05.05.2019 and refused to come to the matrimonial
home. Facts being so, she made a complaint against him and the
counselling was given at the police station and she also agreed to live
with him. Further, he specifically stated that the respondent has not even
allowed the appellant to see the child and he saw the child only once on
10.05.2019 with the help of the police officers. She also insisted not to
participate in the first birthday celebration of the child. Hence, he
returned to his native place without seeing his child on the first birthday
function and also without handing over the new dress, toys, sweets, etc.,
which he bought for the child. On 24.09.2018, she snatched away the kid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
from the appellant's hand. In the said circumstances, the respondent made
false allegation. In spite of that false allegation, he filed the petition in
H.M.O.P.No.468 of 2020 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram,
for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. On receiving the notice, the
respondent filed the transfer petition before this Court and the same was
dismissed with a direction to approach proper forum. At that time, a
compromise entered between them and hence, he withdrew the petition.
In spite of the compromise, she refused to live with him and hence,
without any remedy, he filed the petition in H.M.O.P.No.1299 of 2021,
before the Family Court, Nedumangadu, and the same is pending. After
that, she filed the present petition for the restitution of conjugal rights.
Therefore, there is no merit in the petition.
4.Before the trial Court, the wife/respondent examined herself as
P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. On behalf of the
husband/appellant, the husband was examined as R.W.1. and Exs.R.1 to
R.13 were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The learned Family Judge upon considering the evidence,
allowed the restitution of conjugal rights petition, by the impugned order
dated 20.07.2023. Challenging the same, the appellant filed this revision.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband
submitted that the repeated complaints were made by the respondent/wife
against the family members of the appellant and also no bona fide steps
were taken by the respondent for reunion, even after dismissal of the
petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Apart from that, she persistently
made false allegations as if she was forced for conversion. With this
allegation, he was unable to live with her and hence, he filed the divorce
petition. The same is pending and the present petition has been filed as a
counter blast to the same. In the said circumstances, he seeks to dismiss
the petition filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act. The learned Family judge failed to consider the above
sequence of events and erroneously allowed the application and directed
the parties to live with her. In the said circumstances, he seeks to set
aside the order passed by the learned Family Judge. Apart from that, he
also submitted that in spite of the strained relationship, he also took the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
bona fide steps for reunion in the interest of the child by filing the
restitution petition. Pending the same, she undertook to live with him but
she did not live with him and she herself voluntarily left the matrimonial
home without any fault upon him. In the said circumstances, allowing the
petition without clubbing the divorce petition pending before the some
other Court, amounts to the deprivation of fair opportunity to the
appellant to meaningfully contest the divorce petition.
7.The learned counsel for the respondent contrary to the said
argument stated that all the allegations made against the respondent is
without substance. There is a persistent demand on the side of the
appellant to convert the religion. Even though no material was adduced
to prove the same, the fact remains that she was subjected to some
harassment in the name of conversion of the religion. Hence, she left the
matrimonial home and made the complaint. Pending the same, she was
forced to live with him and hence, she went to the matrimonial home.
Even after that she was not allowed to live with peacefully along with the
child and there was a consistent demand of conversion. That apart, she
specifically denied the occurrence that took place on 24.09.2019 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pleading of the appellant that when he came to the residence of the
respondent on the date of the first birthday celebration of the child, the
respondent and her family members obstructed him. She also stated that
the appellant has not filed this petition with bona fide intention. Once the
appellant filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the incidents
that took place before the filing of the petition all are condoned. In such
circumstances, the same is not a ground for filing the divorce and also
not a ground to deny the relief of the restitution. Hence, she seeks for the
dismissal of this appeal and she specifically stated that the learned trial
Judge considering the overall circumstances, rightly granted the relief of
restitution of conjugal rights in the interest of the child and the marriage
is still subsisting and there is a hope for the reunion and continuation of
peaceful matrimonial life. In such circumstances, the learned trial judge's
finding need not be interfered with.
8.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available
on records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.The following point arise for consideration of this appeal:
9.1.Whether the Court below is correct in granting the relief of
restitution of conjugal rights?
10.Admittedly, there is no dispute relating to the marriage that took
place on 03.12.2017. The respondent's case is that she was subjected to
harassment at the hands of the appellant and his family members to
profess Christianity. Even though there is a pleading, this Court finds no
material to substantiate that purpose and there was some allegations
made against the respondent, all the allegations were made before filing
the petition in H.M.O.P.No.468 of 2020. Thereafter, the respondent filed
a petition in H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2022 for the relief of restitution of
constable rights. In the said circumstances, whatever events happened
between the spouse before the filing of the petition the same is condoned.
In the said circumstances, the defence of the appellant that he was
subjected to harassment by making the complaint and other things is not
a material before this Court in deciding the restitution of conjugal rights
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition. The appellant was not established that she has departed from the
relationship with the respondent without any reasonable cause. In this
case, this Court finds that both the parties have not made any serious
allegations and no acrimonious charges made against each other. In the
said circumstances, this Court finds no serious dispute pending between
the parties and hence, the learned trial judge correctly considered the
interest of the child and also the facts and appreciated of the material and
demeanor of witness, and has clearly come to a conclusion that there is a
possibility of reunion. The said finding is based on the demeanor of the
witness. The learned trial Judge correctly appreciated the conduct of the
parties and both regularly appeared before him and decided the fact that
there would be a possibility of reunion and also taken into consideration
of the welfare of the child.
11.In view of the above circumstances, no serious allegation was
made against each other. The main allegation raised by the respondent
against the appellant and his family members is relating to the conversion
and same was also condoned. Now, the respondent has come forward
with the specific undertaking that she is ready to live with the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for the welfare of child and also she has come forward with bona fide
offer. This Court is inclined to accept the case of the respondent that she
is entitled for the relief of the restitution of the conjugal rights. In result,
this Court finds no merit in this appeal and there is no infirmity in the
order of the learned trial Judge.
12.Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed
confirming the judgment and decree passed in H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2022,
dated 20.07.2023, by the Family Court, Tirunelveli. No costs.
[V.B.S.J.,] [K.K.R.K.J,.]
28.10.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes /No
vsg/sbn
To
1.The Family Court,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J.,
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J.,
vsg/sbn
Pre-delivery order made in
28.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
