MOHANA Vs. D JAGANNATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the against the Judgment and decree in H.M.O.P.No.88 of 2005 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpalttu, whereby the marriage between the appellant and the respondent solemnized on 23.2.1992 was ordered to be dissolved.

(2.) IT is the case of the respondent/husband that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 23.2.1992. After the marriage, the appellant used to quarrel with the respondent by using filthy language and deserted him from April 1992. She always used to ridicule the respondent as he is a handicapped person. She cares only the properties of the respondent and the appellant/wife deserted the respondent without any justifiable reason. But, with false allegations, she filed a petition seeking maintenance in M.C.No.2 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ponneri and obtained an order against the respondent for payment of maintenance ofRs.400/- per month. As the respondent suffered physically and mentally at the hands of the appellant, he filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant/wife has very strenuously contended that the decree has been granted by the trial Court erroneously on the ground of cruelty. The allegation made by the respondent in the petition for divorce as to cruelty is very bald to the effect that the appellant had teased the respondent by calling her handicapped. It is true that the respondent is a handicapped person even prior to the marriage. Having known that the respondent is a handicapped man, the appellant married him. In such circumstances, the bald allegation of teasing the respondent as handicapped cannot per se be treated as cruelty. He further contended that the trial Court has taken note of the imputation in the legal notice issued by the appellant by calling the respondent as handicapped person. Even that cannot be regarded as the amount of cruelty, as the same was issued by the appellant's lawyer. A decree of divorce cannot be granted on the basis of bald and unestablished allegations.