E. VEDI Vs. JOTHI @ NADUTHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

(2.) Mr.E.Vedi, the appellant herein has brought this civil miscellaneous second appeal against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Vellore, reversing the judgment and decree of divorce granted by the learned Subordinate Judge,Tirupattur.

(3.) The appellant/husband filed the H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2006 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging various grounds that after 23 years from the date of marriage and giving birth to two daughters, namely, Saritha and Sasikala in the year 1985 & 1989 respectively, the attitude and conduct of the respondent/wife underwent a complete change and she also failed to discharge her duties as a dutiful Hindu wife towards the appellant. Besides, on many occasions, she started behaving in an indifferent manner and also left the appellant without informing him and the elder members in the family to lead a wayward life by going to Tirupattur, Vaniyambadi and Ambur. Later on, the appellant came to know that the respondent has been leading an immoral life. Moreover, she was also addicted to alcohol and she behaved in a recalcitrant manner towards the appellant. When several steps were taken by the appellant to correct her, keeping the welfare of daughters and the family as a whole, his efforts ended in vain and the respondent has not even paid any heed to the advise given by the appellant. This apart, the respondent also had gone to the extent of disposing all the jewels including that of the daughters for her extravagant life. In view of this, there was no cohabitation between the appellant and the respondent for the last 15 years. Alleging illicit intimacy with one Malayan, S/o Periya Malayan of Athanavoor, who is permanently residing at Chinna Vattanur of Pungampatti Nadu in Javadhu Hills, the appellant charged the respondent for leading an adulterous life. It was further pleaded that the said Malayan was running a grocery shop as a tenant in a portion of the building owned by the appellant in Punganur Village, Yelagiri Hills. The respondent joining hands with the said Malayan, a Paramour, filed a false complaint against the appellant at Yelagiri Hills Police Station and after enquiry, a panchayat was convened and in the said panchayat, the appellant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.44,000/- to the said Malayan to leave the rented shop. The appellant's first daughter Saritha, conniving with the said Malayan, has been supporting their illegal adventures. After getting the amount, the respondent got emboldened and openly supporting the said Malayan started going to various places to lead an adulterous life. When the matter stands as above, the respondent has not only given a false complaint against the appellant, but also filed a case seeking monthly maintenance and in addition thereto, the respondent also filed a civil suit seeking partition along with her daughters. Therefore, when the police complaint and maintenance case have been filed and a suit for partition also has been filed, the conducive matrimonial atmosphere in the house had vanished. Moreover, as they are living separately for more than 25 long years, the question of reunion and living together does not arise. When the trial Court, after considering these three vital facts, (i) that the respondent has been leading an immoral life with one Malayan, as a result, refused to cohabit with the appellant for 15 years; (ii) that a false complaint has been filed before the Yelagiri Hills Police Station that was also subsequently settled; (iii) that a case of maintenance has been filed and the respondent also joining hands with her daughters filed a suit for partition, the appellant and the respondent cannot live together and consequently, when a decree for divorce was granted dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, the lower appellate Court, on an appeal filed by the respondent/wife in H.C.M.A.No.4 of 2013, without even considering any of the facts, namely, the filing of the case of maintenance and the filing of the suit along with her daughters for partition and that there was no cohabitation for over 15 years, erroneously reversed the said decree, against which the present civil miscellaneous second appeal has been preferred, raising the following substantial questions of law:-