Madras High Court
Kalaimathy vs Manila Gandhi on 6 April, 2023
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
Kalaimathy ... Appellant
..Vs..
Manila Gandhi ... Respondent
Pr a y e r : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 20 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the
Sub Judge, Chidambaram in H.M.O.P No.13 of 1994 dated 30.04.1998
dissolving the marriage held on 02.09.1990 between the appellant and the
respondent.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Rajkumar
For Respondent : Mr.G.K.Gaarkey Chandhar
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
JUD G M E N T
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Wife, Kalaimathy
aggrieved by the fair and decreetal of the Sub Court, Chidambaram, in
H.M.O.P. No. 13 of 1994, thereby allowing the petition for divorce filed by
the respondent/husband, Manila Gandhi, on the ground of adultery,
desertion and cruelty under Sections 13 (1) (i), 13(1) (a), and 13(1)(b) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. The case of the respondent/husband is that the marriage between
the parties was solemnized on 02.09.1990 at Ramadoss Pillai Kalyana
Mandapam, North Car Street, Chidambram; at the time of marriage, the wife
was doing her M.Sc course (zoology) in Annamalai University and the
husband was working as Geologist in Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd.,
at Warangal District in Andhrapradesh; after the marriage, they lived for
about a month at Warangal District; the respondent-husband was
transferred to Orthanadu in Tanjore District in the month of October 1990;
his mother was then residing at Sivasakthi Nagar in the periphery of
2/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
Chidambram; since the wife wanted to pursue her M.Sc degree by staying
in the Annamalai University Hostel, the husband consented for the same; he
used to visit Chidambaram in the weekends and during such visits of the
husband, the wife also used to come from her hostel and stay with her
husband in her mother-in-law's house; the aforesaid arrangement continued
and the respondent's life was peaceful for the first few months; thereafter,
the wife stopped coming to her mother-in-law's house during the weekends;
when the respondent went in search of his wife, she was absent in her hostel
room; after enquiries, he found that she was frequently visiting the house of
an English lecturer by name Mr.James; the respondent-husband warned the
appellant-wife not to stay in the house of others at odd hours; but she did
not care to heed the petitioner's advise and continued her activities.
3. It is the further case of the respondent-husband that he found her
wife was moving very intimately with her elder sister's husband one
Dhakshinamoothy; whileso, both the husband and wife went to
Kollunmangudi on 26.04.1991 to attend the marriage of her younger sister
on 28.04.1991 at Sirkali; after the marriage, the wife refused to return with
3/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
the husband and went to stay with the above said Dakshinamoorthy and
family; thereafter, on 02.05.1991, when the husband visited his wife's
house unexpectedly, he found the said Dakshinamoorthy and his wife were
lying fully naked on a cot and engaged in an act of sexual intercourse; he
reported the above said incident to his father-in-law who chided his
daughter and the said Dakshinamoorthy; her father also pleaded and begged
the respondent to forgive her and not to publicize the incident; she also
requested the respondent to forgive her; after completion of her degree
course, the wife did not come to Orthanadu to live with the respondent-
husband and instead, she asked him to come to Kollumangudi during the
week ends; though the respondent did not relish the idea, he obliged his
wife, in order to avoid tensions; on 28.07.1991, the respondent saw his wife
and a neighbour by name Natarajan having intercourse in the latter's house;
the respondent's aunt Tmt.Maheswari also witnessed the same; her father
refused to come to the place of occurrence; the wife and the said Natarajan
ran away on seeing the respondent; the father refused to come out of his
house and they started accusing the respondent of being a suspicious, old
fashioned and narrow minded man; thereafter, the respondent left to
4/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
Chidambaram along with his aunt; subsequently, the respondent issued a
legal notice dated 02.09.1991 to his wife demanding divorce; she also sent
a reply dated 7.10.1991 and filed an application for maintenance in M.P
No.3 of 1991 under Section 125 Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate,
Myiladuthurai; thereafter, the husband also filed O.P No.58 of 1992 on the
file of Subordinate Judge, Myiladuthurai, seeking restitution of conjugal
rights; the husband offered to live with his wife even in his counter to M.C
No.3 of 1991, but the wife refused to resume cohabitation with the husband;
the wife is in possession of jewels, dresses and valuables.
4. It is further stated that after filing of O.P No.58 of 1998, the wife
lodged a false complaint as against the husband with a view to harass and
defame him to his higher officers at M.E.C.L falsely alleging that he came
to the wife's house on 12.04.1991 and carried away all her valuables; she
wrote several letters to the husband and his relatives both in her own name
and in other names accusing and scolding the husband and his family in
filthy, profane and nasty words and also alleging that the husband was
insane, suspicious and a man having incestuous relationship with his female
5/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
relatives besides several other unbearable things; the wife also gave a false
complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam alleging dowry
harassment, torture and cruelty on the part of the respondent-husband and
also roped the respondent's brothers and family members in the same; the
respondent-husband suffered great mental strain and tension due to the
aforesaid complaints and conduct of the appellant-wife and suffered a lot; in
the mean time, both the husband and wife filed a compromise memo in M.C
No.3 of 1991 and a maintenance of Rs.350/- per month was awarded to the
wife; the application for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P No.58 of 1992
was dismissed for default on 18.02.1993; he preferred an application in
I.A.No.96 of 1993 to restore the said application and it was also dismissed
on 24.01.1994; thereafter, on 14.02.1994, when he approached the wife and
her father to arrange for a divorce by mutual consent, they compelled and
coerced him to sign in 5 blank white papers and except with no other option
he signed in the blank papers; the wife also slapped the husband on his face
and asked him to get out; later, the respondent-husband lodged a police
complaint and thereafter filed a petition for divorce.
6/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
5. The appellant-wife filed a counter denying all other allegations
made in the affidavit except those that are specifically admitted by her. It is
contended by the appellant-wife that the respondent-husband was not
behaving properly and the marital life was not peaceful from the beginning;
he tortured the appellant mentally and physically demanding more dowry;
the respondent used to doubt the appellant and link her with whomsoever
happened to meet and he behaved more like a psyciatric patient; on account
of this, she was unable to pay attention even to her studies; on 12.04.1991,
the respondent with his office assistant Sachidanandan went to the
appellant's parents house at Koolumangudi in a office jeep and took away
all the valuables including B.Sc., degree certificate belonging to the
respondent; thereafter, the respondent sent a registered lawyer's notice
demanding divorce on untenable grounds citing so many false incidents; for
which the appellant replied suitably; hence she filed a petition for
maintenance; in order to avoid the payment and maintenance, the
respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights; finally, monthly
maintenance of Rs.350/- was ordered; in the meanwhile, on 15.8.1993, a
compromise was entered between the parties and arrived at a decision for
7/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
reunion; the respondent accepted his faults and got apology for his indecent
action against the appellant-wife and requested the appellant's father to
forgive him for his act and allowed them to live jointly; accordingly, the
respondent and appellant were living at Kollumangudi from 15.08.1993 to
03.09.1993; later, on 03.09.1993, he went out of the house without any
information, but not turned up; in such circumstances, the respondent
issued a notice to the appellant stating that as if he came to the appellant's
parents house on 14.02.1994 and he was threatened by her family members
and obtained signature on blank papers etc., ; she learnt that the respondent
is arranging for a second marriage stealthily with one Indira Gandhi for the
purpose of getting more dowry.
6. Since the efforts of counseling the parties and resolving the
matrimonial conflict did not yield any positive result, the Subordinate
Court had no other option than to proceed with the trial. The husband
examined himself as PW-1 and his aunt Maheswari was examined as PW-2
and Exs-P1 to P25 were marked on his side. The wife examined herself as
DW-1 and other two witnesses were examined as DW-2 and DW-3 and
8/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
Exs.R1 to R23 were marked on her side.
7. The Subordinate Court, after considering the pleadings of the
parties and the evidence on record, held that non-consummation of marriage
even during the initial period of few months of living together by the parties
amounted to adulterous, desertion and cruelty on the husband. The trial
court found that after receipt of legal notice only, the wife preferred a police
complaint against her husband alleging that he harassed her by demanding
dowry and due to the said complaint, the husband got depressed. Further,
the trial Court observed that after the panchayat held between both the
parties, the respondent-wife had not come forward to live with her husband
and by her act, she caused depression to the husband and she was living
separately without any reason. Hence, the husband has filed the divorce
petition on the grounds of adulterous, desertion and cruelty Finally, the trial
Court, based on the said complaint and maintenance case came to a
conclusion that in order to get money from the husband and with an
intention of keeping him restless, the wife is acting and accordingly, the
prayer of the respondent/husband for divorce was granted. Aggrieved by the
9/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
same, the present appeal is filed before this Court.
8. Heard Mr.G.Rajkumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and
oMr.G.K.Gaarkey Chandhar, the Learned Counsel for the respondent.
9. The Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the Court
below has erroneously held that the appellant-wife had committed adultery
solely on the basis of evidence of PW2, who is close relative to the
respondent-husband (PW1) who had admitted in her cross examination that
she did not tell anybody about the adultery committed by the appellant-wife
and she was revealing the said alleged act of adultery only in the court for
the first time and in any event, her evidence has not been corroborated by
other evidence. The plea of adultery was not taken in earlier proceedings by
the respondent-husband in the maintenance proceedings as well as in the
petition filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights and it is clear that the
grounds of adultery had been raised in this proceedings alone for the
purpose of this case. The respondent-husband alone treated the appellant-
wife with cruelty in many ways. He would further submit that the Court
10/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
below had committed legal error by entertaining the original petition
without impleading the alleged adulterers as a party to the proceedings and
as such, the entire proceedings on the ground of adultery is liable to be set
aside. In order to strengthen his argument, the learned counsel has relied on
the judgment rendered by Division Bench of High Court of Andra Pradesh,
in the case of Mirapala Venkata Ramana vs. Mirapala Peddi Raju
reported in 2000 (2) A.P.L.J. 67.
10. The Learned Counsel for the respondent/husband would submit
that from the date of marriage, the wife was not willing to live with the
husband, she was never willing for reunion and already the husband is
greatly prejudiced by her illegal conduct by keeping him at bay from 1990
till now. He would submit that in the facts and circumstances of this case,
no fault can be found in the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Court.
11. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of either side
and the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record. Admittedly,
the appellant and the respondent, after the marriage was solemnized on
11/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
02.09.1990 at Ramadoss Pillai Kalyana Mandapam, North Car Street,
Chidambram, as per the Hindu rites and customs, lived together only for
few months. During that period, it is the specific case of the respondent-
husband that the appellant had sexual relations with one James,
Dakshinamoorthy and Natarajan. PW2 is a close relative of the respondent-
husband and she deposed that the appellant-wife had sexual relationship
with three persons. In such circumstances, the husband ought to have
impleaded the said persons to prove the allegation of adulterous act
committed by his wife. But, he has failed to implead them as necessary
parties. The Court below without properly verifying the records came to a
wrong conclusion that the appellant-wife was involved in adulterous acts.
As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, in a case for
divorce based on adultery, the adulterer is a necessary party and ought to be
made as respondent in the instant case. But the respondent-husband had
failed to implead the alleged adulterers and as such the O.P is hit by non-
joinder of necessary party. The order of divorce granted without impleading
the adulterers named by husband is not sustainable and the same is liable to
be set aside. Therefore, the finding of the Subordinate Court on the ground
12/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
of adultery is not sustainable. However, on the ground of desertion and
cruelty, a perused of the materials available on record would reveal that the
respondent has proved the case against the appellant and even the appellant
could not print out any error in the appreciation of evidence on the aforesaid
grounds.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, the finding with regard to adultery is set
aside, however, on the other grounds, the respondent has established his
case and therefore, the fair and decreetal order dated 30.04.1998 passed by
the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram does not require any
interference and the order and decree granting divorce is confirmed.
13. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no
order as to costs.
06.04.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order:Yes/No
uma
13/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
To
1. The Subordinate Judge,
Chidambaram.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
14/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
uma C.M.A.No.1916 of 2000 06.04.2023 15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis