Madras High Court
S.Kavitha vs G.Renald Vincent on 20 September, 2024
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
C.M.A.Nos.197 & 198 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.07.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 20.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.M.A.Nos.197 & 198 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.2381 of 2018
S.Kavitha ... Appellant in both CMAs'
-vs-
G.Renald Vincent ... Respondent in both CMAs'
COMMON PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section
19 of Family Court Act to set aside the Judgment and decree dated
20.01.2017 passed in D.O.P.No.1178 of 2009 & D.O.P.No.1085 of 2011
on the file of the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore.
In both CMA's:
For Appellant : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja
For Respondent : No appearance
******
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 8
C.M.A.Nos.197 & 198 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
The appellant-wife filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals as
against the common order made in D.O.P.No.1178 of 2009, M.C.No.84 of
2010 & D.O.P.No.1085 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Family Court,
Coimbatore dated 20.01.2017, whereby, the learned Judge, Family Court,
allowed the divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband, dismissed
the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the appellant and
ordered Rs.5,000/- in total, towards maintenance to the appellant/wife and
her minor son.
2. Before the trial Court, on the side of the appellant, the wife herself
was examined as R.W.1 along with one another witness R.W.2 and 6
documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P.1 to P-6. On the side of the
respondent, the respondent/husband was examined as P.W.1 and 7
documents were marked as exhibits Ex.R1 to R7. The trial Court, after
hearing both sides, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/wife in
D.O.P.No.1178 of 2009 for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights and
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.197 & 198 of 2018
allowed the petition filed by the respondent/husband in D.O.P.No.1085 of
2011 for seeking divorce and their marriage was dissolved. Aggrieved by
the said order, the appellant / wife has preferred the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals before this Court.
3. Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja, learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that after few months of marriage, the respondent often made
accusations against the appellant by stating that she is not beautiful and
that he would marry another girl and insisted the appellant to go away from
the matrimonial home. On 28.10.2009, the respondent and his mother
threatened the appellant that they would stab her to death, if she does not
leave the matrimonial home by herself. The respondent has beaten the
appellant severely and drove her out from his house in the presence of her
brother. Thereafter, the respondent sent a legal notice dated 10.11.2009 to
the appellant with false allegations of cruelty and called upon the appellant
to give her consent for divorce.
4. On 17.11.2009, when the appellant's father and paternal uncle
went to the respondent's house along with the appellant for mediation, the
respondent and his mother did not allow them inside the house and also
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.197 & 198 of 2018
assaulted the appellant and the respondent also stamped her and drove her
out. Therefore, the appellant gave a complaint before the All Women
Police Station, Gudalur for her protection. On the same day, the
respondent sent another legal notice to the appellant and the appellant sent
her reply on 27.11.2009. On 23.11.2009, the appellant's father also gave a
complaint before B5, Singanallur Police Station, Coimbatore. However,
the appellant is ready and willing to live with the respondent and therefore,
she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Court
below.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
appellant has clearly established her case by examining witnesses R.W.1
and R.W.2 and also marked exhibit.R1 to R7. The trial Court failed to
consider the said evidence. Further the respondent/husband has not proved
cruelty for granting divorce. But, the trial Court without considering the
same, granted decree of divorce and dismissed the petition filed by the
appellant/wife for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights.
6. There is no appearance for the respondent. The pleadings,
written statement, evidence would go to show that there is
misunderstanding between the parties. The learned Judge, has given a
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.197 & 198 of 2018
finding that the petitioner-wife failed to prove that the respondent alone
had deserted her, but she was staying in her parents house without any
valid reason.
7. The learned Judge, Family Court also pointed out that during the
pendency of DOP.No.1085/2011 before District Court, Nilgiris, the
husband has endorsed that he will take back his wife with him, but the wife
refused to live with the husband and failed to appear before the court and
as such, she was set exparte on 22.10.2010 and exparte decree of divorce
was passed on 26.10.2010. Further it is pointed out that though the wife
had the knowledge of the same, failed to file a petition to set aside the
decree of divorce within 90 days and as such the husband got married and
got a child out of the second marriage. The trial Court, after considering
the case of the appellant and the respondent, allowed the petition for
divorce on the ground of cruelty caused to the husband; thereby, granted
decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. Therefore, there is no useful
purpose in keeping the marriage alive.
8. On a perusal of the entire facts of the case and the common order
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.197 & 198 of 2018
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, we are of the opinion that the
appellant/wife caused cruelty to the respondent/husband. The trial Court
has rightly granted decree of divorce to the respondent-husband and
dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/wife for the relief of restitution
of conjugal rights on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, the common order
of the Trial Court is proper and it does not warrant any interference.
Further, the trial Court also awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the
Appellant/wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the male child, in total the trial
Court awarded Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance from the date of petition.
However, either the respondent or the appellant did not file any appeal as
against the maintenance order passed by the trial Court.
9. Therefore, the common order passed by the trial Court is no way
perverse or infirmity and it does not warrant any interference. Thus, the
points are answered accordingly. However, considering the nature of the
case and facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to award
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards permanent alimony to the
appellant. Therefore, the respondent/husband is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the appellant towards
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.197 & 198 of 2018
permanent alimony within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment.
10. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have no merits
and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous
Appeals are dismissed. The respondent/husband is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the appellant/wife towards
permanent alimony within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed. No costs.
(J.N.B.J.) (P.D.B.J)
20.09.2024
sts
Internet : Yes/Nos
Index :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
To
The Principal Family Court,
Coimbatore.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.197 & 198 of 2018
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
P.DHANABAL, J.
sts
Common Judgment made in
C.M.A.Nos.197 & 198 of 2018
Dated:
20.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
