Madras High Court
T.Dhanalakshmi vs S.Kumaresan on 20 April, 2016
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian, N.Kirubakaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.04.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.M.A.(MD)No.1111 of 2012 T.Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs. S.Kumaresan ... Respondent Prayer: The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 19 of Family Court Act 1983 against the order dated 13.07.2012 made in H.M.O.P.No.364 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai. !For Appellant :Mr.V.P.Rajan ^For Respondent :Mr.S.Ramesh :ORDER
(THE ORDER IS MADE BY N.KIRUBAKARAN,J.) The appeal has been filed by the wife against the decree of divorce dated 13.7.2012 granted by the Family Court, Madurai in H.M.O.P.No.364 of 2006 filed by the respondent/husband. The respondent and the appellant got married on 30.08.2001. Right from the beginning, the marital relationship was not cordial. Therefore, the appellant went to her parents' house and stayed their often. A child was born. Many conciliations were made during two years period of marital life.
2. Since the appellant/wife deserted the respondent and caused mental cruelty, divorce petition was filed on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The appellant resisted the divorce petition on the ground that the respondent alone caused mental cruelty to her by demanding more dowry. She contended that the respondent and his mother forcibly took her to Paramakudi stating that she is possessed with devil spirit and they did Poojas by a Kodangi Poosari, who had brutally beaten the appellant. Apart from that, the respondent used to abuse and beat her. Therefore, left with no other go, she used to go her parents' house.
3. The respondent examined himself as PW1 and the appellant as well as one Saravanan were examined as RW1 and RW2. The marriage is admitted and a child was born during the period of two years of marital life. The Trial Court appreciated the evidence on record and found that there was a misunderstanding between the spouse right from the beginning of the marital life. Both of them exhibited their emotional immaturity and they are unable to live together. The entire evidence on record would reflect the cruelty caused by both the parties. The appellant deposed that the respondent and his mother have been causing mental cruelty to her. Likewise, the respondent also alleged mental cruelty and desertion. Taking into consideration of the incidents of cruelty suffered by appellant as well as respondent and the fact that they are living separately for the past five years, the Trial Court granted divorce. The said decree of divorce is being challenged before this Court.
4. Heard the parties and perused the records. A perusal of the evidence would show that both the appellant as well as the respondent caused cruelty against each other, which was rightly appreciated by the Trial Court. Right from the beginning of marital life, the relationship between the appellant and respondent was not cordial and often the appellant deserted as the respondent caused cruelty. Many mediations were done. Though, arrangements were made to live separately in the first floor of the same house, that itself became a ground to make allegation against each other.
5. Psychiatrist's report Ex.C1 would clearly show that both the appellant as well as the respondent have got personality disorder and no fruitful result could be achieved by counselling. Psychiatrist opined that the respondent has a personality pattern having emotional immaturity and reactive depression. Similarly, the appellant/wife has a borderline personality disorder with intolerance to criticisms and uncontrolled angry. Relevant portion of the summary of the said Psychiatrist's report reads as follows:
?SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The clinical and psychometric profiles of Kumaresan and Dhanalakshmi point to the following:
1.Kumaresan has a personality pattern marked by emotional immaturity and a reactive depression needing counselling help.
2.Dhanalakshmi has a serious borderline personality disorder with instability in relating to the significant others, particularly her husband and in-laws because of her intolerance to criticisms and uncontrolled anger which has caused an irreparable damage to her marital life, leaving her with no chance for a reunion with Kumaresan who is determined never to be reunited with her.
She also has a secondary Paranoid Psychosis. She needs long-term Psychotherapy and referral to a psychiatrist consultant for appropriate pharmacotherapy, may be a mood stabilizer and an anti-psychotic.
6. On comprehensive appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court has rightly concluded that both the parties have caused mental cruelty to each other. Moreover, they are living separately for the past 15 years and the marriage was irretrievably broken down. Furthermore, the Psychiatrist's report would clearly indicate incompatibility of the spouses. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the Trial Court for granting divorce is based on the evidence and the same is confirmed. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
7. During the hearing of the appeal, the respondent filed an undertaking affidavit undertaking to settle a landed property measuring an extent of 1444 sq.ft. in Iravathanallur Village of Madurai South Taluk and further making an undertaking to construct a house at the cost about Rs. 25 lakhs. He also undertook to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) each in the name of the minor son as well as in the name of the appellant. The said undertaking is recorded. It is useful to extract paragraphs 7 to 10 of the undertaking as follows:
?(7) As against the judgement and decree, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent wife. As both appellant and respondent were able to realize their incompatibility and have realized that the bondage of marriage has irretrievably broken, and on the advice of the elders, I have agreed and abide to execute a deed of conveyance in favour of my son K.Balaji with regard to my absolute property with an extent of 1444 sq.ft. Situate in Iravathanallur Village of Madurai South Taluk bearing S.No.29/8.
(8) I undertake to put up a house construction in the above said vacant plot at the cost of Rs.22 to Rs.25 lakhs, considering the welfare of my minor son and the appellant herein. I also undertake to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) each in the name of the appellant and my minor son K.Balaji.
(9) The jewels and other articles gifted to the appellant at the time of our marriage by her parents are all safeguarded in a bureau under lock and key and the same is in the custody of appellant/respondent wife. I will handover the entire bureau to the appellant/respondent wife and deliver the same at her residence at my cost in the presence of the counsel appearing for the appellant.
(10) I undertake to carry out the above undertakings on or before 31.01.2016 except the construction of house. For the purpose of construction of house, one year time may be granted.?
8. In terms of the above under taking the respondent is directed to convey the property as stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 in favour of minor K.Balaji and make the deposits as stated in paragraph-8 within two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of the decree. Similarly, the appellant shall make construction in the property as stated in paragraph-8 within one year from the date of the receipt of a copy of the decree and hand over possession to the Appellant and her son. The respondent shall return the items as undertaken by him in paragraph-9 within one month.
9. The appeal is dismissed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 are also dismissed.
To The Family Court, Madurai..