Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iii) The appellant and the respondent had gone to Munnar for honeymoon and the stay was arranged by the father of the appellant. The entire trip was arranged only with the reason that the appellant and respondent should start the matrimonial life with full happiness. The appellant denied the allegation of the respondent that when he had informed that he availed loan of Rs.7 lakhs from the Bank to upgrade the amenities in the house, she threatened the respondent that it has to be repaid only by his parents. She has also denied the allegation that she tortured the respondent during the honey-moon trip. On the other hand, it was the respondent who made demand of dowry. The appellant never questioned the income of the respondent nor the debt incurred https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMA.Nos. 2296 & 2297/2013 by him before the marriage. She has also denied the other allegations that she refused to prepare coffee in the morning, sat cross-legged before the elders or disrespected the elders. She also denied that she scolded the father of the respondent as bald-headed person. She has given utmost respect to the respondent and the elders in the family. From the date of marriage, she has been performing all the household chores as a dutiful wife. She has also denied that on 22.04.2008, she quarrelled with the respondent and had driven him out of the lease hold home. Similarly, she has denied the allegation that appellant and her family members assaulted the respondent and his family members. According to the appellant, the respondent left her matrimonial company on 22.04.2008 and he did not return. On the other hand, the respondent had issued a notice dated 10.05.2008 for dissolution of marriage. It is in those circumstances, the appellant/wife had given a complaint, based on which, a case in Crime No. 1 of 2008 was registered on 16.05.2008 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. On coming to know about the registration of the case, the respondent and his parents obtained anticipatory bail. As the efforts taken by the appellant to join the matrimonial company of the respondent failed, she has filed the Petition for restitution of conjugal rights. In effect, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the original petition filed by the respondent for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, since https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMA.Nos. 2296 & 2297/2013 the averments made therein are bald and vague and they are not such that it warrants dissolution of the marriage.

8. Pending appeal, the appellant has filed CMP No. 14435 of 2018 in CMA No. 2296 of 2013 for reception of additional documents. Prominent among the documents sought to be marked by the appellant, relates to:

(i) Order passed in the Petition filed by the respondent and his parents for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMA.Nos. 2296 & 2297/2013 anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge at Chennai, (ii) the final order passed in the petition filed by the appellant under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, (iii) the order passed by this Court in CRP No. 1 of 2013 and 4 of 2013 etc., The appellant also filed CMP No. 6474 of 2018 in CMA No. 2296 of 2013 to receive additional documents such as (i) Certificate of incorporation of a company run by the respondent (ii) the photograph showing the respondent with his second wife and the child born to them and (iii) order passed by this Court in CRP No. 3191 of 2012.

14. The main dispute between the parties, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is with regard to demand for money alone. The appellant lodged a complaint relating to demand for dowry and based on the same, an enquiry was conducted. For the purpose of enquiry, the respondent and his parents were called upon to the Police Station. Subsequently, the respondent and his parents applied for anticipatory bail and the same was objected to by the appellant by filing an intervening petition. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, such filing of intervention petition had become necessary to bring to the notice of the Court the correct facts relating to the matrimonial dispute between the parties and it cannot be said to be cruelty. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMA.Nos. 2296 & 2297/2013 after investigation, charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.7538 of 2009 on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, against the respondent-husband and his parents, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A against the respondent and his parents. This only indicates that there is substance in the complaint given by the appellant which led to filing the charge sheet after due investigation. No doubt, the appellant-wife had also filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and also a Maintenance Case claiming maintenance from the respondent-husband. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, all the proceedings initiated by the appellant are only to assert her legal right and therefore, they cannot be taken into account to hold that the respondent was harassed. Further, the various proceedings initiated by the appellant were intended to join the respondent in the matrimonial home, whereas, the Family Court has come to the conclusion that right from the date of marriage, the appellant started acting cruelly towards the respondent. In fact, the respondent has attempted to improve his case by adding imaginary allegations to the effect that the appellant had assaulted him and cut with blade, which were not found in the Original Petition or in the counter filed for the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. As the Original Petition has been filed with bald and vague allegations, the Family Court ought to have dismissed the Original Petition https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMA.Nos. 2296 & 2297/2013 instead of granting a decree of divorce for dissolution of marriage. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lingorin Vs. Gnanapragasi, reported in 2018 (8) CTC 40 to contend that bald and vague allegations are not sufficient for dissolution of marriage.

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



CMA.Nos. 2296 & 2297/2013




                                                                   (R.P.S.J.,)    (C.S.N.J.,)
                                                                             25-01-2021
                  rsh/cs
                  Index: Yes
                  Speaking Order: Yes




                  To
                  1. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

                  2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section
                     High Court, Madras




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



CMA.Nos. 2296 & 2297/2013

                                                      R. SUBBIAH, J

                                                            and
                                                 C. SARAVANAN, J



                                                                       cs




                                     Pre-delivery common Judgment in
                                     CMA Nos. 2296 and 2297 of 2013




                                   Judgment delivered on 25-01-2021




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