Madras High Court
M.Mallika vs P.Prameswaran on 25 September, 2020
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
CMSA.No.10/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 25.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
CMSA.No.10/2019
M.Mallika .. Appellant
vs.
P.Prameswaran .. Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed against the fair and
final order of the Additional District Judge, Magalir Neethimandram
(Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode, dated 20.11.2017 made in
CMA.No.13 of 2017 confirming the judgment and decree in
HMOP.No.59 of 2015 dated 05.06.2017 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Perundurai, Erode.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Gowtham
For Respondent : Ms.R.Shase
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/10
CMSA.No.10/2019
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been filed against the fair and final order of the Additional District Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode, dated 20.11.2017 made in CMA.No.13 of 2017 confirming the judgment and decree in HMOP.No.59 of 2015 dated 05.06.2017 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Perundurai, Erode.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant wife submitted that the marriage of the appellant wife with the respondent husband was solemnized on 13.04.2014. Thereafter, they were living together. While so, the usual minor differences of opinion have occurred between the couples that have given rise to the appellant-wife leaving the matrimonial home. However, taking note of the non-response from her husband, the appellant wife was taking several initiatives for reunion. Finding no positive response, she was advised to file HMOP.No.52/2015 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Subordinate Judge, Perundurai, Erode. Thereafter, the respondent husband also filed HMOP.No.59/2015 seeking divorce under Section 13(i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of cruelty.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/10 CMSA.No.10/2019
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant wife further submitted that when both the matters were tried together, the learned trial court by taking into account the major allegations said to have been levelled against the respondent husband, namely, firstly that there was an illicit intimacy with another lady, the learned trial court finding no evidence produced to substantiate the said allegation of illegal intimacy of the respondent husband with another lady held against the appellant that the allegation of illegal relationship would amount to mental cruelty. Secondly, when the appellant wife approached the Superintendent of Police, Erode, giving a complaint with a bonafide intention to mount pressure on the respondent- husband to come for reunion, the trial court misunderstanding the intention of the appellant wife for which she has given the complaint, wrongly came to the conclusion that she has gone before the Superintendent of Police with a complaint to send the respondent husband and his family members to jail. Thirdly, when there was a defamatory news appeared in the Daily Newspapers alleging that the respondent is having illegal conduct with another woman, the trial court again went against the appellant wife that no such steps would have been taken by any dutiful wife to the extent of giving a defamatory statement against her own husband in daily newspapers. On these three grounds, the petition filed by the http://www.judis.nic.in 3/10 CMSA.No.10/2019 respondent husband was dealt with and the HMOP.No.59/2015 filed for divorce on the ground of causing mental cruelty also has been allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant wife filed CMA.No.13/2017 before the learned Additional District Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Perundurai in HMOP.No.59/2015 dated 05.06.2017 and yet another CMA.No.12/2017 was filed against the order passed in HMOP.No.52/2015. The learned Additional District Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode, agreeing with the findings and conclusions reached by the trial court while upholding the same confirmed the judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal came to be filed.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law:
a. Whether in law the lower appellate court was right in overlooking the overwhelming evidence clearly pointing out that the complaint filed by the petitioner was a single act and not a continuous one, hence, the same single act cannot form cruelty? http://www.judis.nic.in 4/10 CMSA.No.10/2019 b. Whether in law, the lower appellate court was right in inexplicably holding that it had not been proved by the appellant that she was cruelly treated by the respondent?
c. Whether in law the lower appellant court was right in holding that the respondent was entitled to divorce merely because she deposed that she was not aware of the contents of R1.
5. Relying on the findings recorded by both the courts below, the learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that it is not in dispute that the appellant wife has not even passed second class. When this being the most crucial aspect, it is far from acceptance and imagination to come to a conclusion that such an uneducated lady can ever go to the press for the purpose of giving a false complaint against her own husband. When such allegation was made by the respondent husband that the appellant wife was responsible for publishing the defamatory news in Daily Newspapers alleging that the respondent is having illegal conduct with another lady that gives mental agony to the respondent husband, it was not substantiated by the respondent husband. It is, at this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent seeking leave of this Court demonstrated before this Court that it was only the appellant wife who was fully responsible for giving wrong defamatory news so http://www.judis.nic.in 5/10 CMSA.No.10/2019 as to publish in daily newspapers throwing wild allegation that the respondent husband was having illicit relationship with another lady. Taking into account the conduct and behaviour of the appellant and also the way in which she has responded during the trial, the trial court came to the conclusion that the allegation made by the appellant wife showing the respondent husband was having illegal relationship with another lady being a false allegation that would definitely cause mental agony to the respondent, hence, the trial court has come to the conclusion that it is a fit case for divorce resultantly also disallowed the prayer for grant of restitution of conjugal rights filed by the appellant wife. When the wife has given false defamatory news in the daily newspapers against her own husband alleging that he was having illegal intimacy with another lady, the act of giving false news to daily newspapers is sufficient to cause mental agony to the husband and his family members. Hence, the substantial question No.1 is answered against the appellant-wife.
6. Again coming to the yet another contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant wife being a dutiful wife waiting for a long time from the date of leaving the matrimonial home, finding that there was no response from her http://www.judis.nic.in 6/10 CMSA.No.10/2019 husband, with a fond hope that by giving a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, would bring some pressure on the respondent for reunion, she has given a complaint, but this has been misconstrued by the trial court that she has gone to the Superintendent of Police only with a malafide view to victimise the respondent-husband and his family members. But here also, the learned trial court after going through the evidence placed on either side came to the conclusion that the appellant went to the Police Station with clear intent to arrest them and put them into jail. When the police conducted an enquiry, it was found that it was a false one and dismissed the complaint. Further, even the complaint given by the appellant wife against the respondent husband before the Superintendent of Police, Erode, alleging dowry harassment was also found to be false. Therefore, the trial court came to the conclusion that the petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be decided in favour of the appellant wife and following the same reason, the HMOP.No.59/2015 was also allowed giving a finding that the appellant wife was responsible for the mental cruelty caused to the respondent husband. Finally, even the substantial questions of law raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant would also clearly show that the appellant herself has admitted the fact that only on one occasion she made a complaint http://www.judis.nic.in 7/10 CMSA.No.10/2019 before the police. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, when the appellant has not repeatedly given the complaints and there was no any other continuous act, the single act cannot be construed wrongly against the appellant wife as any act of cruelty. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is also answered against the appellant.
7. But this Court is unable to accept the said contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant wife. The reason being that when the appellant wife has not even disproved the allegation made by the respondent husband that she was responsible for giving a false defamatory news in the daily newspapers throwing wild allegation against her husband that he was having illegal conduct with another lady and that has caused mental agony to him, in my considered view, the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the trial court that the appellant wife ought not to have given a defamatory news in the daily newspapers, namely, Dhinamalar, Kalaikathir, Malaimalar etc. whether it is a single act or more than a singular act, the injury which was caused to the respondent and his family members through a false defamatory news item in the aforementioned newspapers cannot be wiped of. Therefore, it is not open to the Counsel for the appellant to contend that any http://www.judis.nic.in 8/10 CMSA.No.10/2019 continuous act of giving false complaint would only cause mental cruelty. Hence, the third substantial question of law raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is answered against the appellant.
8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
25.09.2020 tsi To
1. The Additional District Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode
2. The Subordinate Judge, Perundurai, Erode.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 CMSA.No.10/2019 T.RAJA, J.
tsi CMSA.No.10 of 2019 25.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 10/10