NARAYANEE @ KRITHIKA Vs. S.KARTHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Principal Family Court, Chennai in O.P.No.383 of 2007 dissolving the marriage between the parties solemnized on 20.05.2005 at Sri Kamakshi Mahal, No.123, Arcot Road, Saligramam, Chennai and awarding cost of Rs.2,611/- to the respondent herein.

(2.) Dr.K.Santhakumari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/wife Narayanee @ Krithika, assailing the decree of divorce granted by the Court below on the ground of cruelty, argued that the trial Court, without even taking into account the contents of various exhibits and the contents of cross examination of the respondent/husband, has given a finding of guilt of cruelty meted out to the respondent/husband which cannot be sustained, as it is a result of erroneous appreciation of the entire materials available before the Court below. Continuing her arguments, Dr.Santhakumari stated that one of the findings given by the Court below that the appellant/wife had filed number of false complaints against her husband and thereby caused cruelty upon him, cannot be accepted. The reason being that the several applications filed by the wife before the Court below were also out of necessity, as the respondent was evading the payment of maintenance to his wife and child in spite of the order passed by the Court below. Moreover, the conduct of the respondent was evasive and he has also fabricated certain documents to evade the payment of maintenance. In such circumstances, the appellant/wife was constrained to file number of proceedings against the respondent/husband to get the maintenance amount, for which the appellant cannot be demoralized giving a stamp of inflicting cruelty upon her husband. When the filing of proceedings were allowed by law, the same cannot be faulted and characterized as a cruel conduct on the part of the appellant. When the respondent/husband, during his cross examination, has clearly admitted that when he joined duty at Mumbai, he was staying with his wife, the appellant herein, in a hotel room and at that time, they were peaceful and happy. Besides, he also deposed that both of them were searching for a residence in Mumbai and even after occupying the residence in Mumbai, they were living happily. That indicated that there was good understanding and happiness between them. This apart, the evidence shows that they purchased a car by the end of June, 2006 and while in the United States of America in July 2006, he used to speak to his wife and send her normal email marked as Ex.R10 containing the pictures of both the wife and child to her. That also shows that even upto October 2006, life was peaceful between the couple. The above evidence would clearly show that the respondent/husband has admitted that he participated in the appointment seeking process for his wife and they together selected a creche for the child. These facts clearly indicate that the husband had condoned the cruelty, if any at all, by the wife upto January 2007 and when they had lived together happily, it can never be said or inferred that the past cruelty revived just because of the allegations regarding the events on 28.1.2007. Therefore, when the above conducts of the couple clearly show that in the matrimonial life, there were normal wear and tear, this has been blown out of proportion as if the appellant/wife had caused cruelty, that cannot be accepted by the Court of law for dissolving the marriage of the happy couple.

(3.) Again arguing further, Dr.Santhakumari, drawing our notice to page-70 of the judgment passed by the Court below, stated that the Court below, after finding that all the instances of cruelty that took place between 20.5.2005 and 28.1.2006 were condoned by the respondent ensuring a happy family atmosphere, has wrongly taken into account only two instances of cruelty. Firstly, the Court below in its finding went against the appellant/wife stating that she made an unproved false allegation against the respondent/husband that he slapped her on being questioned about his unilateral decision on the naming of the child, as a result of which the wife suffered a damage to her left eardrum leaving her to take treatment, the Court below even refused to mark it, as the respondent/husband pleaded ignorance of the same. When it is the specific admission of the respondent/husband that on that date, his wife was in the matrimonial home, it becomes necessary that the husband is expected to know that the wife went for treatment and naturally he should know why she went. The second finding of the Court below on the allegation made by the husband that his wife and her parents abused him in filthy language by pushing him into a room and ordering him not to use his phone and again abusing him whether he could sleep with his mother and thereafter the police arrived on receipt of information and rescued him and they advised both parties to take legal recourse for necessary remedies, shows that such a finding is totally unsustainable and cannot be countenanced. She also pleaded that the Court below has overlooked one vital aspect that when the respondent/husband has admitted that the police did not take any action on the complaint given by him on 28.1.2007, inasmuch as if the allegation of the husband was true that his wife had confiscated his cellphone on that day, he could not have given any message to his sister. On the other hand, he had his phone with him and called somebody. That shows that his wife did not snatch his cellphone. But this evidence has been overlooked, therefore, such a finding is untenable and illogical.