LexVINOD KUMAR SUBBIAH versus SARASWATHI PALANIAPPAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 5 S.C.R. 800 VINOD KUMAR SUBBIAH v. SARASWATHI PALANIAPPAN (Civil Appeal Nos.5511-5512 of 2014) APRIL 24, 2015 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 13(1 )(ia) - Dissolution of C marriage - Mental cruelty - Divorce petition filed by hus- band alleging cruelty by wife - Subsequently, wife filing for restitution of conjugal rights uls. 9 and also sought mainte- nance - Trial court holding that wife was not entitled to res- titution of conjugal rights, ordered for dissolution of marriage D and fixed maintenance at Rs. 25,0001- pm- However, High Court dismissed the petition for divorce holding that the a/- legations amounted to the normal "wear and tear'' in life and allowed petition for restitution of conjugal rights- On appeal, held: Abusing the spouse as being born from a prostitute, E summoning the police on false or flimsy grounds and mak- ing it impossible for any close relatives to visit or reside in the matrimonial home cannot be termed as "wear and tear" of family life but would result in cruelty to the other spouse F - Husband duly pleaded instances of mental cruelty which he proved in evidence and documents - Trial court exam- ined the same and came to the reasoned conclusion that the actions of the wife amounted to cruelty- Thus, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the conclusions ar- G rived at by the trial court without giving substantiated rea- sons - Order passed by the High Court set aside and that of the trial courl restored. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. H 5511-5512 of 2014 800 VINOD KUMAR SUBBIAH v. SARASWATHI 801 PALANIAPPAN From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2013 of the A Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in C.M.A. (MD) No. 210 & 211 of 2012. lndu Malhotra, Eesha Mohpatra, Vikas Mehta for the Appellant. B Shadan F arasat for the Respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered by VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J. 1. These Appeals assail the C Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench at Madurai, delivered on 13.3.2013, setting aside the Judgment dated 25.8.2011 of the Trial Court. The Impugned Judgment dismissed the divorce petition filed by the Appellant. D 2. The Appellant and the Respondent were married on 28.6.2004 and moved to the U.S. on 9.7.2004. They visited Chennai in October 2005 and June 2006. During the latter visit, the Respondent was three months pregnant and left for E her parental home in Madurai on 10.6.2006 where she gave birth to a male child on 5.12.2006. The Appellant subsequently filed for divorce under Section 13n )(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 30.4.2007. 3. The case put forward by the Appellant is that the Respondent was verbally abusive; she would insult his family; F she would threaten to lodge false police complaints; and she would threaten to commit suicide placing the blame on the Appellant and his family. After she left for her parental home G in June 2006, the Appellant attempted to bring her back to her matrimonial home but she refused. The Appellant claims that he has been put through intolerable mental agony and can no longer continue to be married to the Respondent. H 802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A 4. The Respondent denied these allegations and claimed that she and the Appellant lived happily in the U.S., and she only went to her parental home in June 2006 for her child to be born there. She has pleaded that she returned to Chennai with her child from March to April 2007, that the divorce petition B was completely unexpected and was the result of a misunderstanding between her family and that of the Appellant. She subsequently filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, praying that the Appellant be directed to take her back to her conjugal home, C which she pleaded is in the U.S. She alleged that her husband is living a wayward life, that her father-in-law misbehaved with her, and that her parents-in-law were negligent with her infant child and asked her to leave the house when she questioned 0 them about this. She also filed a maintenance petition seeking Rs. 2 lakhs per month as maintenance. 5. The Trial Court heard all three petitions together and examined the evidence submitted by the parties at length. The Appellant has deposed that when his sister came to the U.S., E she initially staye
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.