Madras High Court
G.Rajaperumal vs Muthukani on 12 September, 2024
C.M.S.A.(MD) No.22 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.S.A.(MD) No.22 of 2017
G.Rajaperumal ... Appellant
Vs.
Muthukani ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 28 of
Hindu Marriage Act and Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the
judgment and decree, dated 20.02.2017 passed in H.M.(C.M.A)No.31 of
2013, on the file of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi confirming
the judgment and decree, dated 09.12.2011 passed in H.M.O.P.No.60 of
2009, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thoothukudi.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Subramani
For Respondent : No appearance
*****
JUDGMENT
The instant second appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful
husband, whose petition for divorce was dismissed by both the Courts
below.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The appellant filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty
and desertion stating that the respondent always had superiority complex;
that even on the date of marriage, she informed the appellant that he was
not a match to her; and that she used to abuse and insult him often; and
that she had left the matrimonial home and thereafter, given a false
complaint before the All Women Police Station and hence, he is entitled
to get a decree for divorce.
3. The respondent filed a counter stating that the averments in the
petition for divorce were false; and that the appellant, who had insulted
the respondent, had suspected her character; and that she had left her
matrimonial home only for the purpose of delivery of the child; and that a
complaint was lodged by her only because the appellant had deserted her
and was not taking care of her and her minor child and it was not a false
complaint.
4. Both the Courts below held that the averments made in the
petition against the respondent by the appellant cannot be construed as
cruelty and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to get a decree for
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
divorce.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a false
complaint was lodged by the respondent before All Women Police Station
and this is sufficient to constitute cruelty, even assuming that the other
averments made by the appellant does not amount to cruelty.
6. At the time of admission, on 29.06.2017, this Court has framed
the following substantial questions of law:
“1. Whether the Lower Appellant Court was right in
refusing the decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty
based on the fact that the wife had made false and frivolous
allegations in the complaints lodged by her, which has been
held to be a cause for mental cruelty?
2. Whether the appreciation of evidence on the part of the
Lower Appellate Court is perverse?”
7. It is well settled that if false complaints are lodged before the
Police by the wife, it may amount to cruelty. However, on facts, this Court
finds that the complaint does not make false allegations. The respondent
had approached the Police only to find a solution since according to her,
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the appellant deserted her. In such circumstances, the Courts below had
rendered a factual finding that the respondent had not given a false
complaint.
8. The other averments made in the petition for divorce would not
be construed as cruelty to invoke Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955. The appellant had also not established that the respondent had
deserted him. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.
9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is
dismissed. No costs.
12.09.2024
Index: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
apd
To:
1. The Principal District Court, Thoothukudi.
2. The Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
apd
12.09.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
