Civil Second Appeal filed by husband against dismissal of divorce petition based on alleged marital fraud and cruelty. Parties reached compromise during hearing to dissolve marriage. Court allowed appeal and granted divorce decree based on executed compromise memo.
Divorce decree dissolving marriage dated 1.9.2003 granted; compromise memo attached to decree.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.7.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
CMSA.No.13 of 2011
Dakshinamurthi
... Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
Banu
... Respondent/Respondent
This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under Section 13(1)(i) (a) of Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgement and decree passed in C.M.A.No.32 of 2007 dated 21.10.2010 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Nagapattinam in confirming the judgement and decree passed in H.M.O.P.No.102 of 2005 dated 02.03,2007 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai..
For Appellant : Mr.A.Muthukumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Sounthar & Mr.B.Jawahar
JUDGMENT
The above Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/husband against the dismissal order of his divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.102 of 2005 passed by the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai dated 2.3.2007 as confirmed in C.M.A.No.32 of 2007 by the District Judge, Nagapattinam on 21.10.2010. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed:
“(a). When the Courts below have found that the respondent had suppressed her eye illness for contracting the marriage with the petitioner. Whether the Courts below erred in law in dismissing the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty?
(b) Whether the Courts below erred in law in holding that the suppression of material fact namely defect in the respondent's eye sight would not amount to mental cruelty to the petitioner?
( c ) Whether the Courts below erred in law in not following the well established legal principle that fraud avoids all judicial acts and suppression amounts to fraud?
(d ) Whether the Courts below erred in law in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to divorce on the ground of desertion when animus desrendi is established?”
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
vk
To
1.The District Judge, Nagapattinam.
C.M.S.A.No.13 of 2011
aa02/11/2015
2 issues framed by the court
Whether suppression of eye illness amounts to cruelty or fraud sufficient for divorce.
Whether courts erred in dismissing divorce petition despite established animus desrendi for desertion.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dakshinamurthi
Banu
N. Kirubakaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
