V.RAJESH Vs. S.ANUPRIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rajesh and Anupriya are husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on September 16, 2015. They were blessed with a male child, namely Vignesh, on July 27, 2016. Some disputes shot up between the couple and hence the husband filed a petition on October 4, 2017 under Sec. 13 (1) (i-a) of 'Hindu Marriage Act, 1955' ['H.M. Act' for short] seeking divorce before the Family Court, Chengalpattu and the same was taken on file in F.C.O.P. No.155 of 2017. Thereafter, as per the Order passed by this Court in Tr.C.M.P. No.975 of 2017 dated March 6, 2018, the case in F.C.O.P. No.155 of 2017 was transferred to Sub Court, Tambaram and renumbered as H.M.O.P. No.348 of 2018. Again as per the Order of this Court dated March 29, 2021 made in Tr.C.M.P. No.120 of 2021, the matter was transferred to Principal Family Court, Chennai and renumbered as H.M.O.P. No.2237 of 2021. Thereafter, as per the Order of the learned Principal Family Judge, Chennai dated February 20, 2023, the matter was transferred to 'the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai' ['the Family Court' for brevity], where the respondent-wife had filed for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.702 of 2021 on February 3, 2021. Both the Original Petitions were tried separately. In H.M.O.P.No.2237 of 2021 filed by the husband, Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.10 and Ex-R.1 to Ex-R.11 were marked. In H.M.O.P.No.702 of 2021 filed by the wife, Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.11 and Ex-R.1 to Ex-R.33 were marked. In both the cases, only the parties examined themselves; no independent witness was examined. After full-fledged trial, separate Judgments were pronounced on the same date i.e., on December 16, 2023, ruling in favour of the wife; petition for divorce was dismissed and that for restitution of conjugal rights was ordered. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the husband has filed the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Petition in H.M.O.P.No.2237 of 2021 i.e., the husband will be referred to as the petitioner and the wife will be referred to as the respondent.

(3.) The crux of petitioner's case is that the respondent / wife refused to live along with the petitioner's parents and demanded separate residence, creating conflicts. The respondent lived together with the petitioner only for 51 days in the 2 years following their marriage. The respondent ill-treated the petitioner saying that he hails from a village whereas she belongs to the city and she cannot live with the petitioner's family. The respondent used to leave for her parents' house very often without any justifiable cause. The respondent is highly quarrelsome and verbally abusive towards the petitioner and his parents. The petitioner was employed in an Engineering College and used to come home by 7 in the evening. While so, the respondent forced the petitioner to return home by 5.00 pm at any rate which was quite impractical for the petitioner, and often threatened him of committing suicide. Further, she threatened him of lodging false complaints as if the petitioner and his family demanded dowry. During the pendency of both the said Original Petitions, the respondent lodged a Police Complaint against the petitioner and his parents containing defamatory and derogatory remarks; she alleged that the petitioner's father sexually harassed her, that the petitioner is flirting and physically intimate with various girls, and that both are perverts. Thus, the petitioner was constrained to move High Court for Anticipatory Bail. Later, the respondent filed D.V.C. No.47/2019, which was later quashed by this High Court. Subsequently, several complaints were made to various authorities, including the Collector, Superintendent of Police and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanchipuram, alleging that her in-laws were preventing them from living together. However, she failed to attend the inquiries and all the cases were closed. The aforesaid acts of the respondent amounts to cruelty and has caused irreparable mental trauma to the petitioner. The petitioner believes reconciliation is impossible and therefore, seek to dismiss of the petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights and to allow the petition filed by him for divorce.