Tag Archives: Divorce confirmed

Filing #False498a on husband is #Cruelty. #Divorce affirmed. #MadrasHC

/////a fase complaint was lodged against her husband, and the case came to be registered under Sec. 498A I.P.C., and criminal proceedings were initiated, and the husband was also arrested. It remains to be stated that the mental cruelty faced by the husband has to be assessed having regard to his status in his life, educational background and the environment, in which he lived. The husband could have suffered traumatic experience because of the police complaint and the consequent loss of reputation and prestige in the society. This Court is of the considered view that the facts and circumstances in the instant case would clearly speak of volume of the false complaint given by the appellant wife against her husband, which resulted in the criminal proceedings, which he had to face. It is true that he was arrested, and then, he was let on bail. No doubt, it is a clear case, wherein the reputation and prestige of the husband in the society has been spoiled. In such circumstances, lodging of the police complaint by the appellant wife has got to be necessarily termed as mental cruelty. In view of these reasons, it would be suffice to sustain the finding of the lower Court that there was sufficient ground of mental cruelty, which would necessitate for grant of divorce./////
******
Madras High Court
Author: M Chockalingam
Bench: N Balasubramanian, M Chockalingam

JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.

1. This appeal has arisen from the order of the I Additional Family Court, Chennai, granting divorce in favour of the respondent husband under Sec. 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

2. The respondent husband sought a decree of divorce before the lower Court alleging that the marriage between himself and the appellant herein took place on 5.9.1991; that they have been living happily for a short while; that thereafter, she created problem and went over from the matrimonial house to her parents’ house; that she lodged a false complaint against him, on the basis of which a case was registered by the police for dowry harassment; that he was arrested and later, let on bail; that the criminal proceedings also went on, and thus, all along, he has been harassed by her; that because of that, he had mental cruelty, and hence, it was a fit case for granting the relief of divorce.

3. The O.P. was contested by the appellant wife stating that it is true that there was a marriage between the parties, but, she was driven away; that there was a child born; that he has not even cared to maintain her or her child; that the allegation that there was mental cruelty caused by the wife against the husband, is utterly false; that he having failed to maintain his wife and child, has come with this false case; that within a short time from the time of marriage, namely a week, there was a dowry harassment by the husband and his sister; that a complaint was lodged by her father in that regard; that pursuant to the same, a case came to be registered under Sec. 498A I.P.C., and criminal proceedings went on; that he was also found guilty in the said case by the trial Court; that the allegation now made by him is an invention; that in order to wriggle out of the marriage tie, he has filed this false case, and hence, the relief was to be denied. https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick/status/1021441313613459456

4. The trial Court recorded the evidence. On the appraisal of the entire evidence, the Court below has found that it was a fit case for divorce and accordingly, granted the relief, what is being challenged in this C.M.A.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant wife, would submit that in the criminal case, both the lower Courts have found that there was a dowry harassment; that though the judgments of the lower Courts were set aside by this Court, there was sufficient evidence let in to substantiate the dowry harassment, and apart from that, having harassed his wife by demanding dowry, he has come forward with the false case for divorce; that he has not even cared to maintain the wife and child; and that it is pertinent to note that the wife has also filed a O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights, which shows the intention of the appellant to live with him. Added further the learned Counsel that the husband has not produced any iota of evidence to show that there was any cruelty made against him; that the petition should have been dismissed by the lower Court, and hence, the order of the lower Court has got to be set aside.

6. After careful consideration of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and on scrutiny of the available materials, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case warranting for admission or for notice to the respondent. https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick/status/1021441313613459456

7. Admittedly, the appellant married the respondent on 5.9.1991, and out of the said wedlock, there was a male born. It is also not in dispute that she lived with him only for a short time. The only contention put forth by the appellant’s side, is that she was driven away from her matrimonial house, and thus, there was a necessity to live with her parents. On the contrary, the respondent husband came with the case of divorce stating that there was mental cruelty, exerted by her by lodging a false complaint under Sec. 498A I.P.C.; that a case came to be registered, and he was also arrested in that regard; that the same would constitute a cruelty, and hence, divorce has to be given. It is an admitted position that the appellant herein lodged a complaint against her husband, and criminal proceedings were initiated; that the said complaint was taken on file by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in C.C.No.11007 of 1992, and the trial went on. It is pertinent to point out that after the initiation of the criminal proceedings, the respondent herein was arrested, and subsequently, he was let on bail. Though the case ended in conviction, he took it on appeal in C.A.No.91 of 1998, which was taken up by the Sessions Court, Madras, which also confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on him. In such circumstances, the husband took it on revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.941 of 2000. This Court had an occasion to consider the rival submissions made and to scrutinise the materials. This Court allowed the revision case and acquitted the respondent husband. At this juncture, it has to be pointed out that on the complaint given by the appellant wife against her husband for dowry harassment, a case came to be registered by the police, and he was arrested and let on bail. He faced the trial before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Chennai in a Calendar Case, and he was convicted and sentenced. That apart, the appeal in C.A.91/98 preferred by him, has also met the same fate at the hands of the Sessions Court. Finally, he was acquitted by this Court.

8. It would be more appropriate and advantageous to reproduce the order of this Court in Crl.R.C.941 of 2000 as follows: “The facts narrated above indicate that the allegations in the complaint to P.W.8 on 26.5.92 should only be considered as an after thought and that the said complaint was given by P.W.1 only to harass the petitioners to subjugate the first petitioner to her wish to stay at Madras. I am unable to accept the prosecution version that the petitioners, joining with the other accused, made a demand for dowry.” Thus, from the wordings found in the judgment of this Court in the revision, it would be clear that it was a false complaint.

9. The case of the appellant was that there was no cruelty exerted, cannot be accepted or countenanced for the simple reason that a fase complaint was lodged against her husband, and the case came to be registered under Sec. 498AI.P.C., and criminal proceedings were initiated, and the husband was also arrested. It remains to be stated that the mental cruelty faced by the husband has to be assessed having regard to his status in his life, educational background and the environment, in which he lived. The husband could have suffered traumatic experience because of the police complaint and the consequent loss of reputation and prestige in the society. This Court is of the considered view that the facts and circumstances in the instant case would clearly speak of volume of the false complaint given by the appellant wife against her husband, which resulted in the criminal proceedings, which he had to face. It is true that he was arrested, and then, he was let on bail. No doubt, it is a clear case, wherein the reputation and prestige of the husband in the society has been spoiled. In such circumstances, lodging of the police complaint by the appellant wife has got to be necessarily termed as mental cruelty. In view of these reasons, it would be suffice to sustain the finding of the lower Court that there was sufficient ground of mental cruelty, which would necessitate for grant of divorce.

10. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent husband has not even made any arrangement for the maintenance of the appellant wife and the minor child also. In such circumstances, while confirming the order of the lower Court, it is made clear that the observations made herein, will not in any way impede the appellant to take necessary proceedings in respect of maintenance for herself and for the child. https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick/status/1021441313613459456

11. With the above observation, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.Ps. are also dismissed.

Wife allegs dowry, adultry & beatng. Stil FC & HC grant divorc due 2 desertion by wife! Madras HC clasic

…In the meanwhile smart husband has re married and has only THREE KIDS from next marriage !!!. …..

In this classic case, considering the long separation and disappearance of emotional bonds, both the Family court and HC grant Divorce to the husband (FC smartly claims wife’s desertion is the grounds) . Wife appeals to the HC and claims she was beaten, she was thrown out of the house etc. She points out that the husband has re-married and has children from the second wife!! Ostensibly this husband has NOT paid a penny maintenance as well… Still HC does NOT reverse the divorce that is granted !! smart husband does NOT even appear for the appeal @ HC !!


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.08.2015

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

C.M.A.No.1679 of 2015

Nallagatla Sukanya @ Chinnamma … Appellant

Vs.

1. Nallagatla Nagesh,
S/o.Ramiah, aged 33 years,
Office Assistant,
Anchor Gate Building,
Port Trust, Chennai 600 001.

2. Guntupalli Balaih
Timmareddypalem Village,
Lingasamudram Mandal,
Prakasam District, Andra Pradesh. … Respondents

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, against the fair and decreetal order, passed in F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, dated 02.08.2011, on the file of the Principal Family Court at Chennai.

For Appellant : Ms.A.Veeramarthini

For 1st Respondent : No appearance

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL, J.)

  1. The Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife has preferred the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, as against the order, dated 02.08.2011, in F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, passed by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  2. The Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, while passing the impugned order in F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000 (on 02.08.2011), filed by the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband, had inter alia observed as follows: “…12. In the instant case, both the parties have been living separately for the past 19 years and all the efforts of amicable settlement have failed. Time has taken its toll in as much as it has indisputably contributed to uncomenting factor. There has been total disappearance of emotional substratum in the marriage and in that event nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied for ever to a marriage which in fact has ceased to exist. Therefore in view of the aforesaid reasoning, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. and resultantly, allowed the petition, by granting the relief of Divorce, on the ground of ‘Desertion’.
  3. As regards the grounds of cruelty and adultery, the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, came to a conclusion that the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband was not entitled to the relief of divorce. Added further, the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, had opined that the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife had left the matrimonial home, without any reasonable cause.
  4. Feeling aggrieved against the order, dated 02.08.2011, in F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, passed by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife has focused the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, primarily on the grounds that the trial Court had failed to observe that the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife had not deserted the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband. On the contrary, the 1st Respondent-Husband (Petitioner) demanded dowry and on failure to comply with, he forced her to send her to her parent’s home.
  5. Learned counsel for the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife urges before this Court that the trial Court had failed to take note of the important aspect, viz., the 1st Respondent/Petitioner(Husband) had married one Rajeswari, after deserting the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife and through the said Rajeswari, he has three children and living with her.
  6. Apart from the above, Learned Counsel for the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife would vehemently contend that the Appellant had taken several steps, including by filing a complaint before the Police for re-union, as seen from Ex.R1 and due to non-cooperation of the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband, the matter proved futile.
  7. Continuing further, it is also represented by the Learned counsel for the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife that the Appellant-Wife has been living separately, only because of the attitude of the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband, who deserted her and therefore, she has no other option to lead and live separately.
  8. The Learned counsel for the Appellant proceeds to project an argument that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence of RW.1 (Appellant), to the effect that the 1st Respondent/Husband had beat her mercilessly on 01.01.1992 and she was bleeding profusely. Also that, on the same day, she was forcefully taken in a cycle rickshaw to Korukkupet Railway Station at 10.20 P.M., boarded with Mother-in-Law, Bolamma, Baleswari, Eswaramma, Sister-in-Law and when the train reached Singarayakonda Station at 10.30 A.M., they had left her alone, without ticket and she herself boarded the bus to to go over her parent’s house.
  9. The last submission made, on behalf of the Appellant, is that the trial Court had failed to note that the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife was perforced to file a case for maintenance in M.C.No.1 of 1997, on the file of the Learned Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Kandukur and a maintenance of Rs.300/- per month, was awarded in her favour, but the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband had failed to comply with the said order.
  10. It is to be noted that the marriage between the 1st Respondent/Petitioner (Husband) and the Appellant/1st Respondent (Wife) took place on 13.10.1988 at Old Washermanpet, Chennai, according to Christian Rites and Customs. Admittedly, no child was born to the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife, through the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband.
  11. The stand of the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband before the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, in F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, was that the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife had an illicit relationship with the 2nd Respondent in the Original Petition, viz., Gunallapalli Balaih, who is the son of the maternal aunt. Also that, he was shocked to witness the illicit relationship between the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent herein and both were caught red handed, during the course of illicit intimacy, etc. Furthermore, the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife left the matrimonial home, on her own volition on 10.01.1992, deserting the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband.
  12. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband was perforced to file F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, on the file of the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. Before the Family Court, the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife had filed a detailed counter/statement of objections, denying the averments/stand taken by the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband.
  13. That apart, the Appellant/1st Respondent (Wife) had projected a case, as if, she was beaten by her Husband, viz., 1st Respondent/Petitioner (Husband), on 01.01.1992 and forcefully taken her to Korukkupet Railway Station at 10.20 P.M., etc. The Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife, in her counter/objections, had categorically denied the allegations of her illicit intimacy with the 2nd Respondent herein, Gunallapalli Balaih and she came out with a plea that she never had any illicit intimacy with the said Gunallapalli Balaih and never deserted the 1st Respondent/Petitioner (Husband), as claimed by him.
  14. Before the trial Court, the Husband, viz., 1st Respondent/Petitioner was examined as PW.1 and on his behalf, another witness, PW.2, was examined. On behalf of the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife, witnesses, Rws.1 and 2, were examined. Besides, on the side of the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband, Exs.P1 and P2 marked. On the side of the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife, Ex.R1 was marked.
  15. The trial Court, on a careful consideration of the entire facts and attendant circumstances of the case, in an encircling fashion and after going through the available materials on record, had resultantly held that the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband was not entitled to divorce, on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. But the trial Court had given a categorical finding that the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife had left the matrimonial home, without any sufficient/reasonable cause. Insofar as relief of divorce was concerned, the trial Court had granted the relief of divorce, mainly on the ground of desertion, made by the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife. As such the trial Court had allowed F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, to the extent, as indicated supra. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  16. This Court had carefully heard the arguments of the Learned counsel for the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife and also perused the order of the trial Court in F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, dated 02.08.2011.
  17. On going through the contents of the order, passed by the trial Court in F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, dated 02.08.2011, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court had dealt with the matter in an elaborate manner and deliberated upon the rival contentions of the parties, in a meticulous and careful fashion and ultimately allowed the petition, only on the ground of desertion. However, it dismissed the petition, for divorce filed by the 1st Respondent/Husband, on the ground of cruelty and adultery.
  18. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is in complete agreement with the view taken by the trial Court, in allowing the Original Petition. In fact, this Court is not in a position to take a different view in Appeal, than the one taken by the trial Court. As such, this Court held that the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife, is devoid of merits.
  19. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

AND M. VENUGOPAL, J.

skm

(S.M.K., J.) (M.V., J.)

10.08.2015

Index: Yes/No

Internet: Yes/No

skm

To The Principal Family Court, Chennai.

C.M.A.No.1679 of 2015

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************