The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has held that initiating criminal proceedings containing grave and unsubstantiated allegations against a spouse and their family members subsequent to the filing of a divorce petition, coupled with neglecting the spouse and children, constitutes cruelty. The Court asserted that such subsequent conduct of pursuing a domestic violence petition on merits without withdrawing it nullifies any presumption that the prior acts of cruelty were condoned by a brief resumption of cohabitation.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of the Family Court, and dissolved the marriage between the appellant and the respondent on the ground of cruelty.
The Division Bench comprising Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima observed that although the appellant (husband) raised allegations of adultery against the respondent, he failed to implead the alleged adulterer as a party to the proceedings, but primarily sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The Bench noted that the respondent (wife) filed domestic violence case, making allegations of harassment and dowry demand against the appellant and his parents, only after the appellant filed the divorce petition.
The domestic violence complaint contained serious allegations that the appellant was a drunkard, unemployed, demanded money, attempted to kill her, and maintained illicit relationships with several women, which was subsequently dismissed in the year 2016, added the Bench.
The Bench noted that the children of the parties appeared before the Court through Video Conferencing and stated that they have been living with their father continuously from the year 2015 and that the respondent has not been living with them or taking care of them. The Bench observed that the Trial Court failed to take into consideration the subsequent conduct of the respondent, particularly the filing of the domestic violence case containing serious allegations against the appellant and his family members after the filing of the divorce petition.
Further, the Bench noted that even if the appellant allegedly condoned the cruelty and lived with her, the respondent did not withdraw the domestic violence petition, and the same was ultimately dismissed on merits. The Bench observed that the appellant established he suffered cruelty, as the respondent neglected the appellant, lived separately without taking care of the children, and initiated criminal proceedings containing grave allegations against him and his family members.
Furthermore, the Bench noted that no document was produced by the respondent to substantiate the claim that the appellant was admitted to the hospital due to excessive alcohol consumption.
Briefly, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized in 2000, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. The appellant is a B.E. Mechanical Engineering graduate, and out of the wedlock, the parties were blessed with two female children. During the year 2007, the appellant secured an employment opportunity at Hyderabad, where the respondent allegedly started creating problems, damaged household articles, behaved in an abnormal and aggressive manner, and attempted suicide by consuming sleeping pills.
The appellant suffered a cardiac ailment and underwent treatment from 2012 to 2014, during which time the respondent allegedly developed an illicit intimacy with one Ramesh, a photo studio owner, sold her jewels, and spent the money lavishly. Later, the respondent allegedly locked the children in a room and was in the company of Ramesh, who escaped from the backside of the house when the appellant arrived. The appellant thereafter resigned from his job in the year 2015, started living with his two daughters, lodged a police complaint, and issued a legal notice seeking divorce in 2015.
The respondent denied the allegations, claiming that the appellant’s heart blockage was due to excessive consumption of alcohol, that he was a habitual drunkard, and that he took the children away while she had gone to write her distance education examinations. The respondent further stated that during the 2016 quarterly examination holidays, the appellant and the respondent lived together as husband and wife for about four or five days. The Trial Court dismissed the divorce petition, holding that the appellant failed to prove the allegation of adultery and had condoned the alleged acts of cruelty by living together during the pendency of the petition.
Appearances:
Advocates S. Sharma and K. Veilmuthu, for the Appellant
Advocate S. Sathish Kumar, for the Respondent
