R.Subramanian,J.
The respondent wife, who suffered a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion in HMOP.No.408 of 1996 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore is the appellant. H.M.O.P.No.408 of 1996 was filed by the husband seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
2. According to the husband, the marriage took place on 09.09.1983 at Jangamanaickenpalayam Village. The husband, was working as a teacher at Kalasapakkam in the then North Arcot District. The wife had refused to join with him at Kalasapakkam or at Pappreddipatti where he was subsequently transferred. It is stated that she wanted to pursue her studies for writing examinations for Indian Administrative service and public service commission. She has also quarreled with the petitioner and his aged mother. She did not live with the petitioner for even 45 days continuously.
3. She had indulged in making false accusation against the petitioner and his mother. She had issued a notice claiming that the petitioner had illicit intimacy with another women at Karamadai and she had given several complaints to the authorities complaining that the petitioner and his mother have demanded dowry. One such a complaint was also taken up as a calender case in CC.No.670 of 1999 and after a full trial, the Court acquitted the petitiioner of charges under
Section 498-A I.P.C. Claiming that the conduct of the respondent and her constant refusal to live with the petitioiner from the year 1986 amounts to cruelty and desertion, the petitiioner has sought for a decree of divorce.
4. The respondent resisted the said application contending that the allegations of unwillingness on the part of the respondent are false. She would deny that she has caused a notice accusing the petitioner of adultery. The respondent/wife would claim that the petitioner and his mother demanded dowry of Rs.10,000/- and 7 sovereigns of gold and since the demand was not fulfilled, the petitioiner drove her out of matrimonial home and that even after the birth of a female child, the petitioiner did not care to visit her and her child. She would also claim that an earlier petition filed by her husband seeking divorce in O.P.No.212 of 1986 was dismissed for non-prosecution. The application seeking restoration of the same was also dismissed. Therefore, according to the respondent/wife, the petitioner is not entitled to divorce.
5. On the above pleadings, the learned Family Judge, Coimbatore, framed the following issue:
1)Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce?
6. Upon a consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Judge, Coimbatore came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of desertion as well as cruelty. The learned Family Judge took note of the fact that the parties were admittedly living apart from 1986 and there has been no attempt by the respondent/wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Trial Judge also took note of the fact that the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner under
Section 498-A I.P.C. ended in acquittal. The Criminal Court had in fact found that there is no substance in the complaint and the witnesses had deposed falsely. As regards the filing of O.P.No.212 of 1986, the learned Trial Judge found that in the absence of any material to show that the said O.P. was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8, the present application for divorce cannot be said to be barred. After referring to various letters written by the brother, sister and father of the respondent/wife, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent/wife is guilty of desertion as well as cruelty. 7. Upon the said conclusion, the learned Trial Judge dissolved the marriage by granting a decree of divorce.
8. Aggrieved by the said decree, the wife has come forward with this above appeal.
9. We have heard Mr.S.Gunalan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.V.Thillaisamy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
10. While reiterating the stand taken by the wife before the Trial Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the respondent/husband cannot take advantage of the judgement of the Criminal Court. He would also submit that it was the husband who treated her and her daughter with cruelty and therefore, the Trial Court erred in granting a decree for divorce.
11. Per conta, Mr.V.Thillaisamy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband would contend that the reasons given by the wife for living separately would not amount to just cause under the explanation to Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, on the other hand, he would submit that it would amount to wilful neglect on the part of the wife to the marriage. The learned counsel would also submit that the wife has admitted having given several complaints against the husband accusing him of adultery, demanding dowry etc. The very fact that she has chosen to withdraw some of the complaints would show the conduct of the wife had resulted in mental cruelty to the husband.
12. From the above rival submissions, the following point is framed for determination in this appeal:
1) Whether the husband has made out a case for divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty?
13. It is an admitted case that marriage ran in to rough weather even in the year 1984 and several complaints have been made by the wife and her father to the District Collector and the District Judge, Coimbatore. It is also seen from the documentary evidence that the respondent wife has been lodging several complaints to the police as well as Officials. A legal notice has also been issued on 10.05.1985 accusing the husband for having illicit intimacy with another lady. At the instance of the Legal Service Authority, it appears that the parties had rejoined during the year 1986. Thereafter, it is claimed that, the wife had left the matrimonial home and refused to come back.
14. The judgement of the Criminal Court in CC.No.670 of 1999 has been marked as exhibit A-39. It has been found that the complaint under
Section 498-A I.P.C. is false and the learned Magistrate has also found the witneses have deposed falsely. It is true that the Criminal Court's conclusions cannot be binding on the Civil Court while deciding the case for grant of divorce, it can definitely be looked into for the purpose of deciding the existence or otherwise of the grounds for divorce. The Criminal Court had categorically found that the respondent/wife, her father and her brother, who were examined as Pws.1 to 3 in the criminal proceedings have not spoken the truth. It has also been found that the said complaint has been made with an ulterior motive.
15. In her evidence as RW1, the respondent/wife has admitted that she has made several complaints against the petitioner and she had also withdrawn some of the complaints. Though she would deny that she had caused legal notice accusing her husband of illicity inimacy, a copy of the notice marked as Ex.A37, would belie her version. Almost all the reasons assigned by the respondent/wife to justify her conduct in living away from the materimonial home and have been found to be false.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant despite his best efforts, is unable to pick hole in the judgement of the learned Family Judge so as to seek interference at our hands. A perusal of the document namely, various letters written by the respondent-wife, her father, her brothers, her sisters would show that she has no justification for living away from the materimonial home. The fact that she had made several false complaints including launching of a criminal prosecution would itself show that she was bent upon disturbing peace and tranquility in the life of the petitioner/husband.
17. The action of the wife in lodging complaints on flimsy grounds at the drop of a hat would itself constitute cruelty affording a ground for divorce. We are therefore, of the opinion that the learned Family Judge, Coimbatore has rightly dissolved the marriage by granting a decree of divorce. Yet another factor, which desists us from interfering with the decree is the current age of the parties. The appellant herself is aged more than 55 years now. The respondent/husband is aged about 64 years now. Hence no useful purpose will be served by keeping the marriage alive.
18. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the judgement and decree of the Trial Court in H.M.O.P.No.408 of 1996 dated 31.03.2004 dissolving the marriage that took place on 09.09.1983 and hence, this appeal is dismissed confirming the judgement and decree of the Trial Court dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.