Madras High Court: T. Raja, J., in the present matter while considering the long separation of parties for almost a quarter-century, granted a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties.
Factual Matrix
In the present matter, appellant was married to the respondent and a male child was born out of wedlock. During the pregnancy of respondent, it was alleged that even after doctor’s advise, the respondent/wife had not taken proper care. Ultimately, the respondent delivered a handicapped male child.
Further, it was also alleged that from the date of marriage, the respondent was adamantly raising disputes and quarrels even for cohabitation due to which the appellant was subjected to mental agony.
Although the appellant tolerated all the unlawful activities of the respondent on the belief that she would change her attitude in due course, no improvement thereon had occurred.
No Response for 7 long years
Respondent later left the matrimonial house and never came back even after a lot of requests and visits by the appellant and his parents. When there was no response from the respondent for 7 long years and thereby deserted the appellant, petition was filed before the Family Court seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i—a) and (i—b) of the Hindu Marriage Act to dissolve the marriage between the appellant and respondent.
Respondent had sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Trial Court concluded that husband, wanted to get rid of the special child and mother and no cruelty was caused by the respondent/wife and no desertion was accused of the simple reason that only the appellant has taken both the respondent with the son by car to her parental house and left them there with the promise that he would come and take them back. But he did not turn up to take them back to the matrimonial home.
When the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that no case of cruelty or desertion was made out, aggrieved thereby, the present appeal was filed by the appellant raising the following substantial questions of law:
- Whether the appellant/husband is entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and whether the respondent/wife is entitled to the relief of restitution of conjugal rights?
- Whether the Courts below have properly applied the law of evidence as the question of proof of cruelty and desertion can always be decided only on oath?
- Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court in putting the blame on the appellant in not taking care of the spastic child is not contrary to the evidence available on record?
Analysis, Law and Decision
Bench expressed that a human problem can be properly resolved by adopting a human approach and applying the same ratio in the cases on hand, when the parties are living separately for 25 long years, not to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties.
Adding to the above, Court stated that preservation of a ruined marriage is totally unworkable, as this would be a source of misery for the parties. During the pendency of the matters, the parties declined to accept the proposal for re-union.
Therefore, when the parties were living separately for 25 long years and the mediation efforts were undertaken also proved to be of no avail, this Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, 2006 (2) CTC 510, Bench decided to dissolve the marriage between the parties.
Moving forward, Court being aware and conscious of the fact that the interest of the respondent needs to be safeguarded, elaborated that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act states that at the time of the passing of any decree or at any tie subsequent, on an application made to it, may order one party to pay the monthly sum as maintenance to other party.
Since the appellant had been paying a sum of Rs 10,000 per month to the wife as maintenance without any default and taking care of his son with the assistance of a helper by paying from his pension bearing in mind that the appellant is a retired Bank Officer, this Court directs the appellant to continue to pay the said sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent without fail.
Lastly, the wife was granted visitation rights and the matter was disposed of in view of the above terms. [V. Ramasamy v. L. Priya, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 1674, decided on 26-04-2021]
Advocates before the Court:
For Appellant: Mrs K.Sumathi
For Respondent: Mr E.Raj Thilak
