SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

S.Veerasamy vs N.Vimala on 26 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Madras High Court

S.Veerasamy vs N.Vimala on 26 February, 2024

C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 08.01.2024

PRONOUNCED ON : 26.02.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

S.Veerasamy … Appellant / Appellant / Petitioner

Vs.

N.Vimala … Respondent / Respondent/ Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 28 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with U/S 100
of CPC, to set aside the
Judgment and decree dated 20.10.2016 passed in C.M.A.No.11 of 2011 by
Principal District Judge, Karur by confirming the Judgment and decree of
the Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur passed in H.M.O.P.No.51 of 2009
dated 06.06.2011.

For Appellant : Mr.I.Vel Pradeep

For M/s.S.Vijayashanthi

For Respondent : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran

1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been preferred against

the Judgment and decree dated 20.10.2016 passed in C.M.A.No.11 of 2011

by the Principal District Judge, Karur by confirming the Judgment and

decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur passed in H.M.O.P.No.51

of 2009 dated 06.06.2011.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred herein as per

their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The

petitioner / husband filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia), (ib) of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, seeking to dissolve the marriage between the

petitioner / husband and the respondent / wife by decree of divorce on the

grounds of cruelty and desertion.

4. The case of the petitioner:

(i) According to the petitioner, the marriage between the petitioner

2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

and the respondent was solemnized on 03.02.2006, as per the Hindu

Sastric rites and customs of the community at Sri Balaji Mahal, Vellakovil,

Kangeyam Taluk in the presence of the parents of the parties, relatives and

friends. After the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent commenced

their matrimonial life in their matrimonial home at Cuddalore Village,

Aravakurichi taluk in the month of Febraury, 2007. At the time of

marriage the respondent’s parents presented 30 sovereigns of Gold jewelry

as seervarisai to the respondent / wife, along with cot and bed and almirah.

Out of the wedlock a male child namely Adith Vikash was born to the

petitioner and the respondent. At the time of filing the H.M.O.P petition,

the child was 2 years old. At the first instance, the marriage went smoothly

and the petitioner and the respondent lived happily as a husband and wife

only for a few months. Thereafter, the respondent did not pay any attention

to the advice of the petitioner and also refused to discharge her duties as a

dutiful Hindu wife. In due course, the respondent began to quarrel with the

petitioner without any reason and without giving respect to the petitioner

and his family members. Very often, she went to her maternal home

without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner and she herself would

come back to the matrimonial home. The respondent insulted and ill-

treated the petitioner in front of the relatives and friends of the petitioner

3/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

that he is an uneducated person. The respondent is a post graduate and she

was working as a Lecturer in Arungaraiamman Arts Science College

Chinnadharapuram and she was also working as an LIC Agent. The

petitioner is just qualified in 9th standard and he is an agriculturist. The

behaviour of the respondent had affected the petitioner mentally to a great

extent.

(ii) Considering the better future life of his children all the efforts

taken by the petitioner to cope up with the respondent went in vain.

However, the quarrels of the respondent increased day after day. While so,

in the month of February 2007, the respondent voluntarily left her

matrimonial home with all her jewelry and went to her maternal home

without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. All the efforts taken

by the petitioner to bring back the respondent to their matrimonial home

proved futile. In the month of February 2009, the well-wishers and close

relatives of both the families intervened in the matter and convened a

Panchayat at the house of the respondent. However, the respondent

categorically stated that she will not come back to matrimonial home and

cannot lead a peaceful life with the petitioner. Despite the intervention of

elders of both the families with adamant attitude, the respondent refused to

4/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

come and live with the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner came to the

conclusion that there was no possibility for the reunion of the petitioner

with the respondent. Since the respondent has deserted the petitioner for

the past two years, the petition for divorce on the grounds of desertion and

cruelty, came to be filed.

5. The case of the respondent:

(i) The respondent had filed a counter refuting each and every

allegations putforth by the petitioner in his divorce petition. Admitting

that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was held on

03.02.2006 at Sri Balaji Mahal, Vellakovil, Kangeyam Taluk in the

presence of both the families, relatives and friends and that the same was

an arranged marriage, conducted as per Hindu Kongu Velalar Gounder

rites and customs. The respondent proceeded to submit in her counter that

she was given with 40 sovereigns gold jewelry as demanded by the

petitioner’s family. That apart, Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) cash

and home appliances including cot and almirah were also given. She

further submitted that the marriage expenditure was shared by both the

families equally. The respondent submitted that the petitioner, apart from

doing agriculture, he was also running a money lending business. Denying

5/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

the submissions of the petitioner that the respondent was continuing to

work as a Lecturer in Arungaraiamman Arts Science College

Chinnadharapuram, she submitted that at the time of pregnancy, she

resigned her job. They were blessed with a male child namely

Adith Vikash and he was born on 16.11.2006.

(ii) According to the respondent, the petitioner was a man of strange

behaviour and mannerisms. He was an adamant person and enforced his

ideals on all the other persons including his parents. After the delivery of

the first child, the respondent / wife became pregnant during the period

between 2017 and 2018. The petitioner had consulted an astrologer and

believed that the conceived child was only a female child. Accordingly, he

compelled the respondent / wife to abort the pregnancy. However, since the

doctors refused to do the same, the respondent negated the idea of the

petitioner to abort the second pregnancy. Finally, on 10.04.2019, the

petitioner himself forcefully chased away his pregnant wife / respondent

out of their matrimonial home, compelling her to abort the foetus. Left

with no other option, the respondent / pregnant wife went to her maternal

home. On 25.10.2009, at Kangeyam Shanmugapriya Hospital, a girl child

was born. The respondent strongly contended that she had never failed to

6/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

do her duties as a dutiful Hindu wife to her husband. She further submitted

that the allegations of misbehaviour and humiliations on the petitioner and

his parents by the respondent are utter false. In reality, the petitioner

inflicted strange mental abuses on the respondent because of his inferiority

complex and ridiculous behaviour. The respondent was seriously initiating

steps for reconciliation with her husband and by all means she was not

ready for a divorce and sought for dismissal of the petition seeking

divorce.

6. The learned Trial Court had framed two issues. Following which,

the petitioner was examined as P.W-1 and one document was marked on

the side of the petitioner. The respondent was examined as R.W-1 and two

documents were marked on the side of the respondents.

7. On the basis of the evidence and the arguments submitted by the

respective parties, the learned Trial Court proceeded to observe that the

petitioner had miserably failed to prove the allegations, namely,

(i) That the respondent compelled him to be a domestic husband in

her maternal home;

7/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

(ii) The respondent never treated her husband and his parents with

dignity and respect; and that

(iii) She always treated him with cruelty by adducing cogent

evidence, relevant documents and appropriate arguments.

Though it is submitted by the petitioner that the respondent had

misbehaved and humiliated him before his parents, friends, relatives and

other persons and such instances resulted in mental anxiety, he miserably

failed to prove the same with appropriate evidence. On that basis, the

learned Trial Court proceeded to conclude that the petitioner / husband had

miserably failed to prove that the respondent inflicted cruelty on him.

8. The second question is one of desertion. The contention that the

respondent deserted the petitioner by the month of February 2007,

voluntarily leaving her maternal home was also not decided in favour of

the petitioner by the learned Trial Court. Though the petitioner has

contended that the respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner on

February 2007 EX.R-2 birth certificate of the second child born on

25.10.2009 would disprove the same. At the time of cross examination, the

8/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

petitioner did not refuse that the second child is not his child. On the other

hand, he only said that he was not informed about the birth of his daughter.

Hence, the allegation that the respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner

as early as in the month of February 2007 was disproved. On that basis, the

learned Trial Court held that the ground of desertion pleaded by the

petitioner had no locus standi. However, the respondent both in her counter

and at the time of evidence, both while chief examination and cross

examination categorically stated that she always intended to rejoin and live

a peaceful life with the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court

dismissed the said HMOP.

9. As against the same, the petitioner / husband preferred a Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.11 of 2011 before the Principal

District Judge, Karur. The learned First Appellate Court has framed three

issues. During the pendency of the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the

respondent / wife filed a Guardian O.P.No.17 of 2011 seeking the custody

of her first child, that is, her son namely Adith Vikash. However, the

learned Trial Court, vide order, dated 10.12.2015 had allowed the said

petition by permitting the respondent / wife to meet her son with certain

conditions periodically. Seeking to mark the order and decreetal order

9/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

passed by the learned Trial Court on 10.12.2015 in Guardian O.P.No.17 of

2011, I.A.No.209 of 2016 came to be filed by the petitioner. Since the

respondent did not file any counter, the learned First Appellate Court

allowed the said I.A.No.209 of 2016, thereby, marking the Judgment and

decree in Guardian O.P.No.17 of 2011 dated 10.12.2015 as Ex.P-2 and

Ex.P-3 respectively.

10. As far as the issue pertaining to the grant of divorce to the

husband is concerned, regarding the argument of the petitioner / husband’s

counsel was that the respondent had inflicted cruelty on the petitioner /

husband by lodging several complaints as against the petitioner. The

learned District Judge proceeded to observe that the allegations has not

been proved by appropriate evidence and not even a single FIR was

registered at the instance of the respondent / wife as against the petitioner /

husband. That apart, the learned District Judge further observed that the

petitioner filed the application for divorce on 24.04.2009 and not even any

criminal case has been lodged by the respondent as against the petitioner /

husband before the filing of the divorce petition and the same has been

brought on record by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

The First Appellate Court categorically recorded the fact that the

10/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

respondent / wife never intended or lodged any complaints in actual terms

as against the petitioner / husband by all means at any point of time before

the date of application filed by the petitioner, that is, on 24.04.2009. The

learned District Judge negated the arguments substantiated by the

petitioner / husband that the respondent / wife inflicted mental abuses and

cruelty as against the petitioner / husband and held that the petitioner had

miserably failed to prove his allegations of cruelty. That apart, the

petitioner’s claim that the respondent had deserted from her matrimonial

home in the month of February 2007 was also negated.

11. A careful perusal of the records would reveal that the second

delivery of the girl child was on 25.10.2009 and the petition for divorce

has been filed by the petitioner within a few months of the pregnancy of

the second child, that is, on 24.04.2009. Observing the fact that in terms of

Section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 under the grounds of

desertion, the couple should have been separated at least for a period of

two years before the date of filing of the petition for divorce, recording the

fact of the birth of the second child on 24.04.2009 would disprove the case

of desertion by the petitioner / husband. Accordingly, the learned District

Judge dismissed the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Challenging the

11/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal came to be filed.

12. The substantial questions of law framed in this CMSA are as

follows:

“(i) Whether the Courts below right in dismissing the
petition and appeal by the appellant for seeking relief of
dissolution of marriage, when both the parties agreed that
they were deserted each other for more than 2 years at the
time of trial without considering the apex Court decisions
as long separation and irretrievable breakdown are
impossible for re-union?

(ii) Whether the Courts below right in dismissing the
appeal by confirming the judgment and decree of lower
Court of dismissal order for the relief of dissolution of
marriage on the ground of cruelty, when there is a clear
admission made by the respondent as she used to give
several criminal complaints to the police officials?”

13. This is the case where the petitioner / husband sought for divorce

on the grounds of cruelty and desertion on the basis of the evidence and

documents made by the respective parties. Both the Trial Court and the

First Appellate Court has concurrently found both the H.M.O.P.No.51 of

12/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

2009 and C.M.A.No.11 of 2011, unfit for allowing, for the reason that the

petitioner / husband miserably failed to prove the allegations of mental

cruelty as inflicted on him by the respondent / wife and the allegations of

desertion with effect from February 2007 before filing of the petition for

divorce on 24.04.2009. The factum of the birth of the second child /

daughter by the respondent / wife on 25.10.2009 itself would disprove the

entire allegations of the petitioner / husband. The Hon’ble Apex Court in

the case of Vishwanath Agrawal .Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agarval reported in

(2012) 7 SCC 288 has dealt with a case of concurrent finding by the Trial

Court and the First Appellate court and has held that the High Court in a

second appeal should not disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless it is

shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse being

based on no evidence or that on the evidence on record no reasonable

person could have come to that conclusion. The relevant portion of the

same is extracted as follows:

“36. In Major Singh v. Rattan Singh it has been observed
that when the courts below had rejected and disbelieved the
evidence on unacceptable grounds, it is the duty of the High
Court to consider whether the reasons given by the courts below
are sustainable in law while hearing an appeal under Section

13/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

37. In Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao it has been ruled that the
High Court in a second appeal should not disturb the concurrent
findings of fact unless it is shown that the findings recorded by
the courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or that
on the evidence on record no reasonable person could have come
to that conclusion. We may note here that solely because another
view is possible on the basis of the evidence, the High Court
would not be entitled to exercise the jurisdiction under
Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This view of ours has been
fortified by the decision of this Court in Abdul Raheem v.

Karnataka Electricity Board.”

14. Fully fortified by the judgment by Hon’ble Apex Court and fully

satisfied by the concurrent findings of the fact as recorded by the learned

Trial Court and the learned District Court, Karur and the reasoning therein,

holding that the decisions of both the lower Courts are fully supported by

the evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with the Judgment and decree

passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Karur in C.M.A.No.11 of

2011 and the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur in H.M.O.P.No.59 of 2009.

14/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

15. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

26.02.2024

NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
Sml

To

1.Principal District Judge,
Karur.

2.The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Karur.

Copy to

The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.

15/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.,

Sml

C.M.S.A.(MD)No.2 of 2017

26.02.2024

16/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation