S. RANI Vs. V. SUBBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the marriage is considered as a social institution where two individuals capable of entering into a wedlock took a resolution to remain in a civilised social order and care about the values to create a concrete bond and its sustainability throughout the life. It is thus a promise not only to be bonded physical but spiritually, emotionally despite the individual in-capabilities, attitudinal differences, disparity in economical as well as geographical differences with fond belief to remain united by creating a mutual trust and above all for advancement of human race. Despite having brought up in different atmosphere, social disparity and perception about the life, they pledge and promise to remain one. The human life is complex so also the human behaviour which is more complicated. The marriage is an affirmance of a civilised social order when two individuals entered into wedlock and share a common roof despite their differences in emotions, egos and even sometimes economical disparities. It is, in other words, a mutual trust which is a common thread in between two individuals which make them united with positive inclination to remain together till the last breath. The ethos of life more particularly the egoistic approach became a seminal issue of discord and the spouse crave for the dissolution of marriage i.e. freedom from the institutional as well as the individual bond.

(2.) The present case is more disturbing when the husband has approached the Court for severance of nuptial tie in the form of dissolution of marriage on the cruelty and desertion. The parties are in half centuries of life having two grown up children placed well in their life. A proceeding under Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is filed by the husband/respondent before the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage after 27 years of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 9th July, 1989 and two sons were born on 26.09.1990 and 12.06.1993 respectively. The husband alleges that they happily lived together till 1993 when the wife, the appellant, left the matrimonial house without his consent and deserted many times without any valid reasons. It is further stated that lastly the wife/appellant deserted the respondent on 12.12.2005 and communicated her decision not to live together. The husband/respondent states that the wife/appellant left for Malaysia without his consent and spent the sale proceeds of the landed properties belonging to the husband/respondent for her lavish and extravagant life.

(3.) After returning from Malaysia she filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C being Misc. Case No. 2 of 2006 which was dismissed on the ground that the wife wilfully deserted the husband. The revisional application filed against the said order was also dismissed. Subsequently, the wife lodged complaint with the local Police as well as the Social Welfare department to harass the husband. It is thus stated that because of such desertion, the husband was deprived of the happiness of the marriage and was compelled to do the household work causing severe pain and suffering amounting to cruelty.