Mangayakarasi V. M. Yuvaraj, CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 19121913 OF 2020 Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) Nos.27042705 of 2019.
“It cannot be in doubt that in an appropriate case the unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such other allegation has been made and the husband and his family members are exposed to criminal litigation and ultimately if it is found that such allegation is unwarranted and without basis and if that act of the wife itself forms the basis for the husband to allege that mental cruelty has been inflicted on him, certainly, in such circumstance if a petition for dissolution of marriage is filed on that ground and evidence is tendered before the original court to allege mental cruelty it could well be appreciated for the purpose of dissolving the marriage on that ground. However, in the present facts as already indicated, the situation is not so.”
The brief facts of the case are as follows; Appellant is the wife of Respondent. Marriage of the parties was duly performed on 08.04.2005 which in fact was after the parties had fallen in love with each other. As per the averments, the wife is elder to the husband by six to seven years. The parties also have a female child, born on 03. 01. 2007. During the subsistence of the marriage certain differences cropped up between the parties. The husband alleged that the wife was of quarrelsome character and used filthy language in the presence of relatives and friends and also that she had gone to the collage where the husband was employed and had used bad language in the presence of the students which had caused insult to him. The husband initiated the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage act seeking dissolution of marriage. On the other hand the wife initiated the petition under Section 9 of the same act.
The petition was filed by the wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage act seeking for restitution of conjugal rights; she had referred to the manner in which the marriage has taken place and had indicated that they are living separately without valid reasons and, therefore, sought for the relief.
The husband having appeared filed the objection statement referring to the parties belonging to different communities as also the age difference. The further averments made in the petition were denied. The husband also referred to the complaint filed by wife before the Negamam Police Station in Crime in which the husband was arrested by the police and was in jail for seven days. In that, it was contended that the marriage between the parties had broken down to a point of no return, hence sought for dismissal of petition.
The learned subordinate Judge, Pollachi by the judgment dated 26.11.2010 dismissed the petition filed by the husband and the petition filed by wife. The husband being aggrieved filed the suit in First Appellate Court. The First appellant court having considered the matter dismissed the appeals filed by the husband. The husband therefore filed a second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. On 20th July, 2018, High Court has allowed the appeal; set aside the order for restitution of conjugal rights and dissolved the marriage between the parties.
The Supreme Court has held that the substantial questions of law held by High Court are not justified. In the case Naveen kohli v. neelu kohli, it was held that that in cases where there has been long period of continuous separation and the marriage becomes a fiction it would be appropriate to dissolve such marriage. The court has come to the consideration to the notice that the parties hail from a conservative back ground where divorce is considered a taboo and further they have a female child born. The Appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
“In a matter where the differences between the parties are not of such magnitude and is in the nature of the usual wear and tear of marital life, the future of the child and her marital prospects are also to be kept in view, and in such circumstance the dissolution of marriage would not be justified in the present facts, more particularly when the restitution of conjugal rights was also considered simultaneously.”
View/Download Judgement: Mangayakarasi V. M. Yuvaraj
– S.Vishal Varma
