THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY have held the following in the above judgement: A wife frequently visiting police station to register complaints, it would amount to cruelty and mental agony and this is sufficient enough to form a ground for divorce as per the Hindu Marriage Act. THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CMA.Nos.3590 and 3592 of 2019 and CMP.Nos.20776 and 20780/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
CMA.Nos.3590 and 3592 of 2019 and CMP.Nos.20776 and 20780/2019
| S.Kavinilavu | … Appellant in both C.M.As.
-vs- |
| Y.Krishna Kumar | … Respondent in both C.M.As. |
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the Common fair and decreetal order dated 29.06.2019 passed in HMOP.Nos.1108/2014 and 4817/2014 by the
learned Principal Judge, Principal Family Court, Chennai.
In both C.M.As.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.G.S.Suvethan
for M/s.K.Elangovan
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA, J.)
Both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been directed against the Common fair and decreetal order dated 29.06.2019 passed in HMOP.Nos.1108/2014 and 4817/2014 respectively by the learned Principal Judge, Principal Family Court, Chennai.
- Mr.Y.Krishna Kumar, respondent herein-husband has filed O.P.No.4817/2014 seeking to pass a decree for divorce under Section
13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, dissolving the marriage solemnized between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband on 23.01.2013 at Arulmighy Vadapazhani Andavar Thirukoil, Vadapazhani, Chennai, as per the Hindu rites and customs which was
also registered with the Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam as M.C.No.211/2013, on the ground of cruelty. While so,
Mrs.S.Kavinilavu, appellant herein-wife filed O.P.No.1108/2014 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of the conjugal rights. Both these matters were taken up together by the learned Principal Judge, Principal Family Court, Chennai. Finally, by a
Common Order and decree dated 29.06.2019, the learned Family Court dissolved the marriage that was solemnized between the parties. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant-wife has filed these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
- Learned Counsel for the respondent-husband would submit
that the appellant-wife has been picking up quarrel for each and every issue that would arise in the day-to-day life. However, he has been silently bearing all these torturous behaviours with a hope that the appellant-wife would one day change her attitude and give a conducive atmosphere to lead a peaceful matrimonial life. But she failed to change her attitude towards the respondent-husband and his family members. Till date, the appellant-wife has filed three criminal cases by often visiting various police stations. One of the criminal cases filed by the appellant wife ended in registering an F.I.R. marked as Ex.R5 before the Family Court making a crude allegation against the respondent that he was pressing her face with pillow on 27.12.2013. But without going to the police station either on the same day or the next day, after a huge delay, she had lodged a police complaint only on 04.01.2014. The police officials also doubting and entertaining suspicion felt that for the alleged incident took place on 27.12.2013, lodging a complaint on 04.01.2014 would indicate that it is an afterthought. The appellant-wife finding that no case has been registered against the respondent-husband, came before this Court and filed a Criminal Original Petition seeking a direction against the concerned police authorities to register a case based on her complaint. As a result, an F.I.R. dated 24.10.2014 was registered which was marked as Ex.R.5. When the appellant-wife has approached the High Court to set the law in motion against the respondent-husband on the ground that no cognizance was taken in her complaint making a grave allegation against her husband that he attempted to murder her for which also the appellant ought to have approached the police at once that has not been done so. Secondly, when the husband was unable to bear with the frequent quarrels and cruelties caused to him gone to his parents home to stay with them, without even waiting to see where he has been residing and without showing any minimum care, once again the appellant-wife has rushed to the police station and gave a police complaint of ‘Man Missing’ which could be easily avoided by a dutiful wife. Again on yet another occasion, she filed one more complaint but the justification given by her shows that she went to the
police station only seeking reunion with her husband.
- Learned Counsel for the respondent-husband would further
submit that in any family, if there is any difference of opinion between the husband and wife, it would be sorted out with the help of the common friends or well-wishers of both families and no one would go to the police station. But in the present case, the appellant-wife goes to the police station to cause mental cruelty to the respondenthusband, but she told that she has gone to the police station only for reunion. In yet another occasion, she filed Domestic Violence Case No.207/2016 before the I Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, against the respondent-husband, claiming Rs.10,00,000/- towards the
marriage expenses and Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation. Therefore, when the appellant-wife visited the police station and also laid a claim for Rs.30,00,000/- against her husband, in the matrimonial relationship, the application filed by the appellant-wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is without any merits and justification. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the respondent-husband referring to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 558 submitted that wife frequently visiting the police station and lodging police complaint and going to court, thereby causing mental agony to the husband would also be a ground for dissolution of the marriage. The reason being that when the wife visits police station frequently to wreck vengeance against her husband, the frequent visits made to the police station can be viewed as a base for causing mental cruelty which shall be taken as a ground for dissolution of the marriage.
- When this Court has posed a question that when the wife has been frequently visiting the police station and court for giving criminal complaints against her husband and at the same time, comes to this Court with an affidavit that she wants only reunion, whether the husband would be in a position to accept her back to the matrimonial home, the learned Counsel for the appellant-wife would submit that although they were knowing each other even before the marriage, after the marriage, they did not even lead a peaceful and happy married life for more than six months. When the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23.01.2013 at Arulmighu Vadapazhani Andavar Thirukoil, Vadapazhani, Chennai, a legal notice was sent on 30.12.2013 and immediately, on 24.01.2014, the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground that the appellant-wife has been frequently
visiting the police station for the reasons mentioned above, therefore, there would not be any possibility for the creation of peaceful atmosphere, more importantly, when the appellant wife has filed a criminal case against her husband that she attempted to press her face with pillow on 27.12.2013 and the police has also registered a FIR on 24.10.2014 marked as Ex.R.5, the respondent-husband by giving a legal notice on 30.12.2013 sought for dissolution of the marriage and on receipt of the reply notice dated 03.01.2014 filed a petition seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 24.01.2014. The learned Family Court also finding that the conduct of the wife for the reasons mentioned above clearly gives rise to the break down of the matrimonial relationship, dismissing the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, rightly allowed the petition filed by the respondent husband seeking dissolution of the marriage. Therefore, there is no merit canvassed either in the petition or in the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant-
wife. Hence, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed, he pleaded.
- Learned Counsel for the appellant-wife has heavily argued
that when the marriage was solemnized on 23.01.2013, the
respondent-husband knowing pretty well that they had love affair even from 2007 onwards 5 years prior to the marriage, without taking into account that in a matrimonial life, it is quite common to face any situation of torture and cruelty, within a year, he has rushed to the court by filing a petition seeking divorce. Drawing our notice to the petition filed for divorce, he has argued that in paragraph 6 of the Original Petition No.4817/2014, the respondent-husband has not even shown any one cause of action for maintaining the said petition. Secondly, in paragraph 5 of the said petition, when the respondent husband has specifically pleaded that he was ready and willing to live with the appellant-wife, the learned Family Court ought not to have allowed the petition seeking divorce. Thirdly, when the respondenthusband has specifically pleaded in paragraph 5 that he was ready and willing for reunion and the appellant-wife has also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Family Court ought to have allowed the petition seeking
restitution of conjugal rights by dismissing the petition seeking divorce
filed by the respondent husband.
- Learned Counsel for the respondent-husband taking the leave of the Court submitted that the respondent-husband in paragraph 5 of the Original Petition has made the point beyond any doubt that he was always remaining ready and willing to live with the appellant-wife peacefully. But finding the subsequent conduct of the appellant-wife in frequently visiting the police station like visiting a departmental store and lodging three criminal complaints against the respondent, the respondent-husband herein has rightly approached the Family Court on 24.01.2014. Hence, it cannot be misunderstood that the respondent-husband has been ready and he was also ready on
the date of filing of the Original Petition seeking divorce.
- Continuing his arguments, learned Counsel for the
appellant-wife would submit that the appellant-wife has resorted to police station only for the purpose of working out her reunion and as she expected that on receipt of her complaint, the police officers also would advise both of them to live together hoping that the respondent would lead a peaceful life. But, again, the respondent-husband has started showing his bad behaviour not living together peacefully. At one point of time, when the respondent went to the extend of
pressing her face with pillow on 27.12.2013, she was unable to justify his behaviour. Therefore, she approached the Police Station and lodged a complaint dated 04.01.2014, but this was not registered by the police. Hence, she was advised to come to this Court seeking a direction to register an F.I.R. and only after obtaining an order for registering the case, the police has registered the F.I.R. which has been marked as Ex.R.5. Therefore, the stand taken by the Family Court is that when the alleged occurrence of pressing the wife’s face with pillow took place on 27.12.2013, lodging the complaint belatedly on 04.01.2014 and then subsequently approaching the High Court for getting a direction to register the F.I.R. shows that the appellant’s stand is absolutely unjustified. Now she has been advised to withdraw the Domestic Violence Case and the same was also listed for hearing on 23.03.2021. The learned Counsel for the appellant-wife would say that the appellant-wife has not pursued the Domestic Violence Case and therefore, it was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.03.2021. But the F.I.R. registered on 24.10.2014 has been pending as C.C.No.253/2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram and the same is also posted for hearing tomorrow and the appellant is also ready to withdraw the same. Therefore, as the learned Principal Judge, Principal Family Court, Chennai, has given a negative approach to the pending criminal case, it should be avoided by this Court as the appellant is always ready and willing to accept the
reunion and she is also ready to withdraw the C.C.No.253/2015.
- But we are unable to find any merits on the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant-wife. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant-wife that in paragraph 6 of the Original Petition filed by the respondent-husband seeking divorce fails to disclose the cause of action cannot be accepted for the reason that when the marriage was solemnized on 23.01.2013 at Arulmighu Vadapazhani Andavar Thirukoil, Vadapazhani, Chennai, the
respondent-husband has sent a legal notice dated 30.12.2013 seeking dissolution of the marriage. But, before the issuance of the said notice, much water has been flown. Firstly, when there was a
difference of opinion cropped up between the husband and the wife, the appellant-wife has gone to the police station. Secondly, when the husband has gone to his parents house, again the appellant-wife has visited the police station and lodged a criminal case for ‘Man Missing’. Thirdly, she again filed another complaint on 04.01.2014 making a serious allegation against her husband that he was pressing her face with pillow on 27.12.2013. When the police refused to register a case by doubting her conduct, citing that for a serious allegation, she has come to the police station belatedly, she came to this Court and filed a Criminal Original Petition and obtained an order to register a case and on the basis of the order passed by this Court directing the All Women Police Station, Tambaram to register an F.I.R., a case was registered on 24.01.2014 that has been marked as Ex.R.5. Fourthly, when the matters stood as above, even if we believe the case of the appellant that she has been all the time rushing to the police station only seeking reunion, this was rightly appreciated by the learned Principal Family Court that always she used to find fault with her husband and go to the extent of lodging serious allegation against him that he attempted to take her life by pressing her face with a pillow on 27.12.2013 that case is even now pending in C.C.No.253/2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram and the same is also posted for hearing tomorrow, her justification that she went to the police station only seeking reunion cannot be accepted for the single
reason that she has also filed DVA case No.207/2016 claiming Rs.10,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation. Therefore, when we are able to see that the wife frequently visiting police station to register complaints, it would amount to cruelty and mental agony and this is sufficient enough to
form a ground for divorce.
- Under such circumstances, as the Original Petition filed by the respondent-husband on 24.01.2014 seeking divorce has not mentioned about the initial complaint given by his wife to the All Women Police Station Tambaram, secondly giving a ‘Man Missing’
complaint to the Mudichur Police Station and thirdly, filing of the F.I.R. on 24.10.2014 after obtaining an order from the High Court, all against him. That apart, the appellant-wife has also filed Domestic Violence Case No.207/2016 before the I Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, against the respondent-husband, claiming Rs.10,00,000/- towards the marriage expenses and Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation. Therefore, since the appellant-wife has
frequently visited the police station and filed the above criminal cases against her husband-respondent herein, her plea of reunion is baseless and merit less inasmuch as if the wife genuinely wanted reunion she would not have lodged C.C.No.253/2015. Hence finding that her
conduct is completely clouded with suspicion and doubt, we are unable to press upon the husband to go for reunion. Therefore, the findings and conclusions reached by the learned Principal Judge, Principal Family Court, Chennai, do not call for any interference.
- In the result, both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed thereby confirming the Common fair and decreetal order dated 29.06.2019 passed in HMOP.Nos.1108/2014 and 4817/2014 by the learned Principal Judge, Principal Family Court, Chennai. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(T.R.J.,) (D.B.C.J.,) 31.01.2022
tsi
To
The Principal Judge, Principal Family Court, Chennai.
T.RAJA, J.
and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
tsi
CMA.Nos.3590 and 3592/2019
31.01.2022
16.12.2021
