S.BALASANKAR Vs. J.ELAVARASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/husband filed this appeal to set aside the order in CMA(HM) No. l6 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli confirming the Judgment and Decree dtd. 7/9/2017 passed by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli in HMOP. No. 90 of 2017, which was filed on the ground that the respondent/wife suppressed her caste and got married with him.

(2.) The petition in HMOP. No. 90 of 2017 was filed under Sec. 12(l)(c) of Hindu Marriage Act. Hence, we have to see whether any fraud was committed by the respondent to solemnize the marriage. The appellant sought divorce on the only ground that the respondent's bio-data was registered with one Ganapathy Thevar Narpani Mandram, Thirumana Thagaval Mayam, as if she belongs to Agamudaiyar Community. However, as per the Community Certificate, the respondent belongs to Valluvan Community. Believing that the respondent belongs to Agamudaiyar Community, marriage was solemnized between the appellant and the respondent. After six months, the appellant found out that the respondent belong to Valluvan Community. Hence, he filed HMOP. No. 90 of 2017 for divorce, within a period of six months.

(3.) The appellant who submits that the respondent had committed fraud, has to prove the fraud committed by the respondent. Even the responsible person in Ganapathy Thevar Narpani Mandram, Thirumana Thagaval Mayam was not examined by the appellant to prove that the respondent wantonly registered her caste as Agamudaiyar, in order to get married to the appellant. Whether the respondent has knowledge about the registration of her case as Agamudaiyar is not known. As per the Judgment of the Principal Seat of this Bench, in the case of A. Premchand vs. V. Padmapriya reported in 1996 (II) CTC 620, suppression of caste is not at all a material suppression or fraud. It would not affect the marriage life. Nowadays, inter caste marriages are solemnized and the couples are living together happily. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for grant of divorce. Both the Courts below had rightly dismissed the petition and appeal on the sole ground that the petitioner has not proved the case. This Court also finds no material ground to entertain this appeal.