P.MAHESWARI Vs. R.MANIKANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs.P.Maheswari, the appellant herein, aggrieved over the common order of dismissal passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Salem in F.C.O.P.No.123 of 2015 filed by her for restitution of conjugal rights and also having suffered yet another decree passed in F.C.O.P.No.517 of 2013 by dissolving the marriage that took place on 26.11.2012 between the appellant and the respondent, has come to this Court with these civil miscellaneous appeals.

(2.) Mr.M.Vijayan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/wife pleaded that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 26.11.2012 as per the Hindu rites and customs in the presence of the well-wishers belonging to both families and they were happily living together in the matrimonial home. However, after sometime, the respondent/husband filed the F.C.O.P.No.517 of 2013 seeking divorce under Sec. 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court below making various allegations against the appellant herein. The first allegation was that the appellant has deliberately and wilfully concealed her first marriage with one Alageshan. The second allegation made by the respondent/husband was that even on trivial issues, the appellant/wife used to behave violently and pickup quarrels with the respondent/husband and his family members. The third allegation put against the appellant herein was that she never discharged her household duties as a dutiful wife. On the other hand, she caused bodily injuries to the respondent herein on many occasions and repeatedly scolded the respondent to leave his parents in an old age home. Opposing the above allegations, learned counsel appearing for the appellant pleaded that so far as the first allegation that the appellant/wife has suppressed the factum of her first marriage is concerned, the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 6.7.2012 passed by the Family Court, Salem in O.S.No.25 of 2011 would clearly indicate that the said marriage with one Alageshan was declared as null and void and the said fact was also brought to the notice of the respondent and his family members by the appellant's parents even during the marriage talks. Secondly, one Mrs.Lakshmi, a relative of the appellant, who was examined as R.W.2, has also deposed that she was present during the marriage talks between the families of the appellant and the respondent and that the fact regarding the first marriage of the appellant with one Alageshan was intimated to the respondent's family during the marriage talks. Accepting the explanation offered by the appellant/wife, the Court below has come to the conclusion that the appellant and her family members has not suppressed the fact regarding the first marriage of the appellant with Alageshan. Therefore, when the alleged suppression of the first marriage was disbelieved, the Court below, accepting the other allegations that the appellant/wife has behaved violently and picked up quarrels with the respondent and his family members; that she did not do any household works and abused the family members and that she also caused bodily injuries to the respondent on many occasions, ought not to have allowed the petition for divorce filed by the respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty. Thirdly, the Court below ought not to have dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/wife under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that it was filed belatedly after a period of two years only as a counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the respondent. Since the Court below has come to the conclusion that the appellant/wife has repeatedly filed criminal complaints against the respondent and his family members for no reason that have caused mental cruelty not only to the respondent/husband, but also to his family members, which is not correct, the present appeals have been filed. Mr.Vijayan, assailing the impugned decretal order dissolving the marriage, further pleaded that when the respondent filed the F.C.O.P.No.517 of 2013 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under Sec. 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and started harassing the appellant/wife, only thereafter, the appellant/wife was constrained to file the case of domestic violence in D.V.O.P.No.72 of 2014 against the respondent's family. When the case of domestic violence filed by the appellant/wife against the respondent/husband and his family members was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.3452 of 2015 by order dated 6.8.2015 and that the private complaint filed by the respondent/husband against the appellant/wife and her family members that was taken cognizance in C.C.No.61 of 2015 was also quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.755 of 2016 by order dated 8.5.2019, against which, when an appeal was moved before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No.7631 of 2019 by the respondent/husband, that was also dismissed on 21.10.2019, the impugned decretal order passed by the Court below dissolving the marriage is liable to be interfered with, for the reason that the appellant/wife is always keeping the doors open for the matrimonial life to proceed further. Again the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when the appellant was advised to file the F.C.O.P.No.123 of 2015 seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as she was ready and willing for the re-union, the Court below has wrongly come to the conclusion that she has moved the petition for restitution of conjugal rights belatedly as a counter blast to the divorce petition. Therefore, the impugned decretal order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Opposing the above contentions, Mr.J.Sudhakaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband submitted that after the marriage, at the repeated insistence of the appellant/wife to have a separate residence, the respondent/husband went for a separate residence with the appellant in the year 2013, although the exact date of setting up a separate residence has not been proved by both parties. But it is an admitted fact that both the appellant and the respondent lived separately at Sankari. Even when they were living separately, there was an allegation made against the respondent/husband that his parents often visited the separate residence and harassed the appellant for additional dowry of 20 sovereigns of gold, for which there was no complaint filed by the appellant. On the other hand, the divorce petition was filed by the respondent/husband citing several reasons that the appellant was insisting upon the respondent to go for a separate residence leaving his age old parents; that she was all the time picking up quarrels with the respondent even in the separate residence; that she did not give importance to the household duties; that she behaved violently and caused bodily injuries to the respondent on many occasions and that she was wrongly advised to file the case in D.V.O.P.No.72 of 2014 against the respondent and his family members. This apart, the appellant also made several criminal complaints against the respondent and his family. When the Court below has also rightly found that the acts committed by the appellant/wife would constitute cruelty and has granted the decree of divorce, the impugned decretal order does not call for any interference. This Court also in R.Seenu v. N.Porkodi, 2018 (4) CTC 622 has held that if the wife files a false criminal complaint against her husband and his family, such act is nothing short of cruelty causing tremendous mental cruelty in the mind of the husband. Applying the same ratio, the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the mental pressure incurred by the respondent on account of registration of the false case in D.V.O.P.No.72 of 2014 by the appellant cannot be lightly ignored. The second reason cited by the Court below shows that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act moved by the appellant/wife was only a drama enacted by the appellant to show that she was interested in the re-union. Had she been really interested, she would have filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights within a week or fortnight or a month on receipt of notice in the divorce petition, which has not been done. On seeing the conduct and the approach adopted by the appellant herein, the Court below, rightly dismissing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that it was belatedly filed after two years as a counter blast, accepting the ground of cruelty alleged by the respondent/husband, has granted divorce. Such a reasoned finding and conclusion reached by the Court below need not be interfered with, he pleaded.