Jahanvi Agarwal
The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench has ruled that when legal action is taken to defend the rights of the wife, such action may never be used as evidence of mental cruelty in a divorce case.
A Single Bench of Justice R. Vijayakumar observed that:
“… this Court is of the considered opinion that the divorce petition lacks pleadings with regard to the mental cruelty, desertion and the deposition of the husband relating to the said allegation do not support the case of the husband. The litigation initiated by the wife is only to protect her property rights and her custody of her son. When the initiation of such proceedings is for the vindication of her rights, the said proceedings can never be considered to be a ground for mental cruelty.”
The Bench ruled that it was their duty to overturn the Trial Court’s ruling because the husband had not proven the grounds of mental abuse and desertion.
The Respondent had filed a divorce case before the Additional Subordinate Court, but the Trial Court rejected it on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He challenged it and approached the District Court, which allowed the appeal and granted a divorce decree.
The appellant requested that the High Court overturn the decision. The appellant was accused of having an adulterous relationship with a man, and despite several pleas, she allegedly refused to stop.
The Judicial Magistrate rejected the complaint that the respondent had brought. He argued that the appellant had deserted him because he and his wife had not spoken for the past ten years.
The High Court noted that:
“… the husband has made a serious allegation of adultery as against the wife and despite being unsuccessful before the criminal Court, he had chosen to repeat the same allegation in the divorce proceedings. Therefore, the finding of the First Appellate Court that the attitude of the wife is to harass of her husband by filing one petition after another is not legally sustainable. He has chosen to file a present divorce petition in the year 2007 alleging mental cruelty. If really the husband had suffered mental cruelty before leaving the matrimonial home, he would have immediately presented a divorce petition on the said ground. Therefore, the findings of the First Appellate Court that the wife had caused mental cruelty by filing the civil and criminal proceedings is without any basis whatsoever.”
The Court was of the opinion that the wife cannot be held liable for failing to take action to restore the conjugal rights when the husband has left the marital residence, is residing elsewhere, and is the subject of a second marriage accusation.
It further stated that the First Appellate Court erred in holding the wife responsible for failing to file an application for the restoration of conjugal rights after concluding that the husband had woefully failed to substantiate the charge of adultery.
The Court concluded by pronouncing that:
“It is clear that the parties to the marriage are living apart only due to the property dispute which is pending S.A(MD).No.1068 of 2007. Some attempts made by this Court to settle the issue were not fruitful. … All the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant.”
As a result, the Court upheld the appeal and overturned the First Appellate Court’s decision.
Case Name: Chandra v. Selvaraj
Diary Number: 15/2011
Bench: Mr. Justice R. Vijayakumar
Click here to Access the Order.