Dismissed

Uma Rani v. Muthu Kumar

Madras HC17 Feb 2014CMA(MD)/1469/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two civil miscellaneous appeals were dismissed. The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the divorce decree, confirming the trial court's finding of wilful desertion. The appeal against the interim maintenance order was dismissed as not legally maintainable when relying on Swarna Prava Tripathy.

What did the court decide?

Both civil miscellaneous appeals were dismissed without costs, and the family court order was confirmed.

Uma Rani Vs Muthu Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.02.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM C.M.A(MD)Nos.1469 & 1470 of 2013

¶3

1.C.M.A(MD)No.1469 of 2013:-

¶4

Uma Rani ... Appellant/Respondent Vs. Muthu Kumar ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶5

Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.07.2011 in H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2003 passed by the Family Court, Madurai.

¶6

For Appellant : Mr.A.Shajahan For Respondent : Mr.V.Sakthivel

¶7

2.C.M.A(MD)No.1470 of 2013:-

¶8

Uma Rani ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. Muthu Kumar ... Respondent/Respondent

¶9

Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2006 in H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2003 by the Family Court, Madurai, dated 13.07.2011.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.A.Shajahan For Respondent : Mr.V.Sakthivel COMMON JUDGMENT

¶11

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.SELVAM,J.)

¶12

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been directed against the order passed in H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2003 and in I.A.No.6 of 2006 by the Family Court, Madurai.

¶13

The respondent herein as petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2003 under Section 13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying to dissolve the marriage held in between him and respondent on 28.05.1999.

¶14

It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is the son of maternal uncle of the respondent and both of them have got married on 28.05.1999 as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs and lived happily for a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ short span and subsequently, the respondent has deserted the petitioner without sufficient cause and abruptly left matrimonial abode on

¶15

¶16

19.12.1999 and now she is living separately. Despite of exertion taken on the side of the petitioner, the respondent has refused to come and live with him. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein.

¶17

In the counter filed on the side of the respondent it is averred that the marriage between the respondent and petitioner has been performed on 28.05.1999. It is false to say that the respondent out of her own volition has deserted the petitioner. The petitioner has suppressed so many material aspects. After lapse of few months, the petitioner and his parents have used to demand more dowry from the respondent and since the respondent has not been able to meet out the demand of dowry putforth by the petitioner, he used to torture her. Under the said circumstances, she has been forced to leave matrimonial abode. It is false to aver that a panchayat has been convened so as to effect compromise in between the petitioner and respondent and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.

¶18

The respondent as petitioner has filed I.A.No.6 of 2006 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for getting interim monthly maintenance.

¶19

The trial Court, after considering the available evidence on record, has allowed H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2003, likewise allowed I.A.No.6 of 2006 in part and thereby granted interim monthly maintenance of Rs.750/-. Against the order passed in H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2003, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal(MD)No.1469 of 2013 has been preferred and for getting enhanced interim monthly maintenance Civil Miscellaneous Appeal(MD)No.1470 of 2013 has been filed.

¶20

Considering the nature of relief sought for in both the proceedings, common order is passed.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent has contended that H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2003 has been filed only on the ground of alleged desertion and the same is not a sufficient ground for dissolving a marriage and it is an admitted fact that marriage between the petitioner and respondent has been performed on 28.05.1999 and only for a short span, both of them have lived happily and subsequently, the petitioner and his parents have used to give torture to the respondent by way of demanding dowry and since the respondent has not been able to meet out their demands, she has been driven out from matrimonial home. Under the said circumstances, she is living separately in her parents' house and no panchayat has been convened and even though it is stated in the petition that the alleged panchayat has been convened in the presence of Rathinam, he has not been examined and the trial Court, without considering the infirmities available in the evidence of the petitioner, has erroneously allowed the petition. Under the said circumstances, the order passed by the trial Court in H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2003 is liable to be set aside, likewise, the trial Court has granted a meagre sum of Rs.750/as interim monthly maintenance and in order to enhance the same, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal(MD)No.1470 of 2013 has been filed and therefore, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are liable to be allowed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

¶23

In order to repudiate the contention putforth on the side of the appellant/respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner has contended that the present petition has been filed only on the ground of desertion. For the purpose of wilful desertion on the part of the respondent, the petitioner has been examined as P.W.1 and even during the course of cross-examination of the respondent, she has clearly admitted to the effect that against her will she has been forced to marry the petitioner and further, she has admitted panchayat and the trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the petitioner as well as respondent, has rightly found that the respondent has wilfully deserted the petitioner without sufficient cause and ultimately granted a decree of divorce and therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is not liable to be set aside. Further, against the order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2006, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal(MD) No.1470 of 2013 is not legally maintainable and therefore, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are liable to be dismissed.

¶24

It is an admitted fact that H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2003 has been filed under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is also equally an admitted fact that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent has been performed on 28.05.1999. It is also equally an admitted fact that both of them have separated on 19.12.1999.

¶25

The main contention putforth on the side of the petitioner is that the respondent without sufficient cause has voluntarily withdrawn from the society of the petitioner and now she has been living in her parents' house and further all the efforts taken by the petitioner has become futile. In order to substantiate the averments made in the petition, the petitioner has been examined as P.W.1. On the side of the respondent, she has been examined as R.W.1. In fact, this Court has closely perused the entire evidence given by R.W.1 in cross-examination and she has candidly admitted to the effect that against her will, she has been forced to marry the petitioner and further, she has admitted convening of panchayat, wherein she has expressed her unwillingness to live with the petitioner.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent has contended that on the side of the petitioner, it has been stated to the effect that the alleged panchayat has been convened in the presence of Rathinam and for the purpose of proving the same, the said Rathinam has not been examined. Even in the evidence adduced by the respondent, she has clearly admitted to the effect that panchayat has been convened, wherein she has expressed her unwillingness to live with the petitioner. Since the respondent has clearly admitted about the convening of panchayat etc., non-examination of the said Rathinam would not militate the case of the petitioner.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent has contended that the petitioner has married one Ramya as his second wife and she has given birth to two children.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that in H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2003 an ex-parte decree has been passed and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ after lapse of 1-1/2 years, the petitioner has legally married the said Ramya.

¶29

¶30

Considering the aforesaid factual circumstances, the residual contention putforth on the side of the appellant/respondent also goes out without merit.

¶31

It is an admitted fact that Civil Miscellaneous Appeal(MD)No.1470 of 2013 has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2006 in H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2003. The petitioner therein has filed I.A.No.6 of 2006 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein the respondent has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.750/ as interim monthly maintenance to the petitioner.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in AIR 1998 ORISSA 173 FULL BENCH (Swarna Prava Tripathy and another Vs. Dibysingha Tripathy and another) , wherein, it has been held that against the order passed under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 an appeal shall not lie.

¶33

Considering the aforesaid decision and also considering the nature of the relief sought for in I.A.No.6 of 2006, it is needless to say that Civil Miscellaneous Appeal(MD)No.1470 of 2013 is not legally maintainable.

¶34

It has already been pointed out that the appellant/respondent has voluntarily withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without sufficient cause and even though the petitioner has made bonafide attempt so as to bring her to marital home, she expressed her unwillingness to live with him. Under the said circumstances, the trial Court has rightly granted a decree of divorce and altogether both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are liable to be dismissed.

¶35

In fine, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs. The order passed in H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2003 by the Family Court, Madurai is confirmed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶38

/True copy/

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

¶41

The Judge,

¶42

The Family Court, Madurai.

¶43

+1. CC to MR.A.SHAJAHAN, Advocate SR.No. 10163 +1. CC to MR.V.SAKTHIVEL, Advocate SR.No. 10306

¶44

¶45

SR : 04.03.2014 : 4p/4c C.M.A(MD)Nos.1469 & 1470 of 2013 17.02.2014

¶46

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Uma Rani v. Muthu Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Rani v. Muthu Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeyanthi Vs Gladson

The Branch Manager, Vs Mathankumar

The Managing Director Vs R. Sathyabama

Nidhiya Vs Vairakannu Ammal, (Died)

Abdul Wahab Vs Mohammed Rafiq

Koolu @ Ayyar Vs the Principal Secretary to