S SAIKUMARI Vs. P MOHANASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the counter-petitioner against the decision of the Principal Family Court, Madras in H. M. O. P. No. 1071 of 1988. It was originally filed before the City Civil Court , Madras . By the impugned decision the family court has allowed judicial separation. The wife has come up with this appeal.

(2.) THE relevant facts are as follows: THE respondent married the appellant on 31. 10. 1977. A daughter was born to them, who is named as Shanmugha Priya. On the date of the petition, she is seven years old. THE petition filed by the husband was one for divorce under Sec. 13 (1) (i-a) of the hindu Marriage Act, 1955. THE ground urged for divorce is cruelty. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the allegations which constitute a cause of action for filing the petition. THEy are as follows: ". . . . . . It is submitted that even though the respondent promised that she would be a housewife and look after the household work, prior to the solemnization of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, she did not adhere to the same subsequent to the same. She was employed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Queen Mary's college, Madras. Though the petitioner objected to the same she refused to accede to his advice. In any event, despite working, she did not contribute any amount towards the maintenance of the house or expend any amount towards the education and the welfare of the minor child. THE petitioner alone contributes his entire earnings for the maintenance of the house and for the education and welfare of the minor child till date. THE respondent by habit is acutely quarrelsome and resorts to constant nagging of the petitioner, causing acute mental agony to the petitioner. Further the respondent has at all times behaved badly and irresponsibly by speaking ill of the petitioner to his clientele which has resulted not only in the petitioner's name being defamed but his reputation was also affected. THE same has affected the petitioner in his career to a very large extent. THE constant quarrelling of the respondent even on petty matters and her incompatible attitude has caused her acute harm to the mental and physical well-being of the petitioner and has affected his concentration at work. THE peace in the family having been shattered due to the respondent's constant quarrels the petitioner has been forced to reside in one room in his office itself. THE petitioner has been thus living for the past one year. This apart, the respondent is also in the habit of quarrelling constantly with the neighbouring and has behaved in a despicable manner necessitating the petitioner to apologise to the neighbours time and again. She has also spoken ill of the petitioners relation and have told them not to visit the petitioner's house. Even her own relations did not visit her due to fear that the respondent would abuse them and quarrel. Further the respondent has accused the petitioner of unfaithfulness which was affected the petitioner's mental frame and balance. THE marriage itself has thus become incompatible. Despite the best efforts of the petitioner to change the attitude of the respondent, she has refused to do so. Due to her constant nagging the petitioner is not able to reside in the house and is forced to stay in the office in one room. THE petitioner is also forced to see his only daughter at school and look after her. THE respondent has not even cared to look after the necessities of the petitioner or render conjugal rights. Due to constant cruelty the petitioner is unable to reside with the respondent any longer. . . . .'

(3.) IN J. L. Nanda v. Veena Nanda, A. I. R. 1988 S. C. 407: (1988)1 S. C. J. 25, it was held that sometimes the temperament of the parties may not be conducive to each other which may result in petty quarrels and troubles. Although, it was contended in that case that the parties had to suffer various ailments on account of the kind of behaviour meted out to them, it was held that it could not be held on the basis of such petty quarrels, a ground of cruelty is made out. IN Pushpa Rani v. Viyapai Singh, A. I. R. 1994 all. 216, it was held: ". . . . evidence regarding cruelty must be such a nature which may inspire confidence in the mind of the court. . . . " Sec. 23 of the Act says "in any proceeding under this act, whether defended or not. IF THE COURT IS SATISFIED that. . . (a) any of the grounds for granting relief EXISTS. . . . and there is NO BAR for granting the relief from the Scheme of the Act, even after amendment in 1976 is not to make divorce easy. Divorce in case of Hindu marriage, is not favoured not it is encouraged. It is duty of Court to see that the relationship is retained and it cannot grant a divorce on vague allegation. IN dealing with cases of divorce, the Court is not dealing with an "ideal husband " or "ideal wife" but "with this man and this woman" only. It is on the basis of above law, we have to decide whether the cruelty alleged in this case, is established.