BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 14.09.2018
(Reserved on 12.07.2018)

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

CMA(MD)No.130 of 2014

A.Amuldoss … Appellant

vs.

S.Arulmary … Respondent

Appeal filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, against
the order dated 18.11.13 in I.D.O.P.No.68 of 2013 on the file of the
Principal District Judge, Thanjavur.

!For Appellant : Mr.R.Maheswaran
^For Respondent : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian

:JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.11.13 made in
I.D.O.P.No.68 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur.

2.Learned counsel for the appellant would aver among other things that
the appellant and respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was
solemnized on 08.06.2008 at Saint Irudaya Aandavar Church in Pudukottai.
After marriage, the appellant and the respondent led their matrimonial life
at the residence of the appellant’s parents’ house in Namanasamuthiram.
According to the appellant, the respondent was not in normal mood and she was
living in the matrimonial home as if she lost something and she did not even
take bath and dress in time. The respondent has completed M.Sc., M.Phil.
When she was made to join as a Lecturer in Mount Zion Engineering College at
Pudukottai District, she did not behave with the colleagues and students
properly and she scolded the students unnecessarily and she did not respect
the administration of the college and hence, she was dismissed from service.
Her behaviour was abnormal and therefore, with a view to give her a different
environment, in the year 2008, she was taken to the appellant’s sister’s
house. It is averred that in her sister’s home, she did not come out of the
bath room and when she came out, it was found that she poured herself the
entire blue kept for shirts on her body. The mother and sister of the
appellant felt that the respondent was suffering from mental disorder and
hence they informed the same to the mother of the respondent, who took the
respondent to hospital at Kumbakonam, but without treatment, she was brought
back to the appellant’s home.

3.Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that in the
year 2009, the respondent had joined as Lecturer at Saint Joseph Polytechnic
College in Thirumayam, and she was allowed to stay in hostel, where also, the
respondent did not behave properly and hence, she was dismissed from service.
Thereafter, at her request, the respondent was admitted in B.Ed., course at
Jamal Mohamed College, Trichy, after paying capitation fee of Rs.1,00,000/-
and she completed the said course while her husband/appellant returned from
Singapore and even thereafter, the respondent did not change her attitude and
therefore, on 10.07.2011, the appellant arranged for a panchayat through
Reverent Father, but there was no positive result and thereafter, the
respondent had gone to the house of the appellant’s sister and as she refused
to accommodate her the respondent returned to her appellant/husband’s house
at Arangal. While so, when the appellant’s sister visited the house of the
appellant, the respondent picked up quarrel with her and had thrown plate at
her and also beaten the mother and sister of the appellant. Narrating the
above events, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
respondent had suffered mental disorder and therefore, the appellant filed
the petition for divorce, but the same was dismissed by the learned Judge by
the impugned order and therefore, he prayed for setting aside the impugned
order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant
relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.Bhagat vs. D.Bhagat
reported in 1994 AIR 710.

4.Learned counsel for the respondent would deny all the allegations and
would also contend that evidences were let in by both the appellant as well
as the respondent and only considering the evidences, the learned Judge
dismissed the divorce petition and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the
present appeal.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, respondent and perused
the materials available on record.

6.Learned counsel for the appellant has raised many allegations against
the respondent on various dates and would try to say that the respondent was
suffering from mental disorder and would narrate various incidents to
establish that the respondent was suffering from mental disorder.

7.Perusal of the entire record shows that the cruelty alleged to have
been committed by the respondent was informed to the appellant only through
his mother and sister, as he was living in Singapore and the mother and
sister were not examined before the Court below. In that circumstances, the
respondent’s contention that the mother and sister of the appellant quarreled
with the respondent as she did not have a child was found to be probable by
the learned Judge and only one witness was examined in support of the
appellant as PW2 who stated that the respondent had frequent quarrel with the
family members of the appellant and hence, he felt that the respondent was
suffering from mental disorder. Since no evidence was let in before the
Court, the Court analysing the various aspects, dismissed the divorce
application, against which, the present appeal has been filed. The fact
remains that even after the dismissal of the divorce petition, the appellant
and respondent were living separately and the said separation is for the past
seven years. Therefore, this Court mediated the appellant as well as the
respondent to explore the possibility of re-union. Though earnest efforts
were taken to unite the couple, it all went in vain. While the wife wanted
to live with the husband, the husband was not willing to live with her.
There has also been a long delay of continuous separation and therefore,
while mediating, this Court found that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair.
Though this Court understands the anxiety of the respondent to unite with the
appellant, when he refuses to do so, this Court has no other option except to
deal with the matter in the circumstances of the case. In my considered
opinion, the marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By
refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the
sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings
and emotions of the parties. In such cases, it may lead to mental cruelty.

8.Therefore, in my considered opinion, in the present circumstances of
the case, ends of justice would be met if the respondent is duly compensated
for the sufferings which she had underwent and therefore, the appellant is
directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only)
towards compensation payable to the respondent, to the credit of
I.D.O.P.No.68 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur,
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. On payment of the said amount, the order dated 18.11.13 in
I.D.O.P.No.68 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur,
shall stand set aside and decree of divorce shall come into operation between
the parties. Needless to say, if the appellant fails to pay the above amount
within the stipulated period, the order dated 18.11.13 in I.D.O.P.No.68 of
2013 shall stand confirmed.

With the above direction, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.
No costs.

To

The Principal District Judge,
Thanjavur.

.