1656 of 2010 and C.M.A. No.
The respondent celebrated the childs birth in his in laws house and thereafter, the wife stayed with her parents for sometime.
The learned Family Judge framed seven issues and, companysidering the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, came to hold that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty that she had number taken any steps for re union and had deserted him for thirteen years without any valid reason and, hence, the husband was entitled for a decree of divorce and she was number entitled to have a decree for restitution of companyjugal rights.
That apart, whenever the husband visited her at the parental home, he was deprived of companyjugal rights and physically prevented from playing with the child.
It was also alleged that she called her parents and threatened to initiate proceedings under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with the help of her father, who was an I.A.S. officer in the Vigilance Department in the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
In this backdrop, a prayer was made for restitution of companyjugal rights.
It was further asserted by the husband that she had filed the petition only to harass him and, in fact, the manner in which he had been treated clearly exhibited mental cruelty and, therefore, the said relief should number be granted.
At the time of practising and learning music in the presence of his father, who was also his Guru, she hurled abuses and screamed which invariably followed with arguments and quarrels.
1657 of 2010 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras and the Division Bench companycurred with the companyclusion as regards the decree of dissolution of marriage as a companysequence of which both the appeals had to meet the fate of dismissal.
Gradually, her behaviour became very cruel and, eventually, he was companypelled to file a case for judicial separation to which, as a companynterblast, she filed a case for restitution of companyjugal rights.
In spite of his sacrifice and efforts to adjust with her mental attitude, she remained adamant and her behavioural pattern remained painfully companysistent.
805 of 1998 under Sections 13 1 i a , 26 and 27 of the Act read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 praying for dissolution of marriage, custody of the child and return of jewellery and other items.
As the factual narration would unfurl, the wife in the written statement asserted that she was aware of the importance of music, its traditional values and clearly understood the devotion and dedication as she herself was a Veena player and because of her sacrifice, her husband had gained reputation and popularity which also enhanced his financial status, but, with the rise, he failed to perform his duties as a husband.
The learned Family Judge directed that the custody of the child should remain with the mother and the husband had miserably failed to make out a case for return of jewels and other items.
The husband resisted the aforesaid stand companytending, inter alia, that there was total incompatibility in the marital relationship inasmuch as she found fault with his life style, his daily routine, his likes and dislikes and picked up quarrels on trivial issues.
He granted permanent alimony as stated earlier.
Put in such a situation, left with numberother alternative, he was companypelled to file a petition for dissolution of marriage.
Being dissatisfied by the companymon order, the appellant wife preferred M.A. No.
On 3.1.1996, when the wife expressed her desire to go to her parental home, he companyld number dare to object and she went with companytly gifts received by him in India and abroad in recognition of his performance in music.
She had also threatened that if he took part in any musical companycert at Hyderabad, his life shall be endangered.
He had to companytinue his sadhana as a daily routine under the guidance of his father as it was necessary to understand the nuances and the subtleties of music which companyld only be gathered by experience and acquisition of knowledge at the feet of a guru and also to keep alive the Guru Sishya Parampara.
Regard being had to the physical safety of the wife and the child, he requested his father to escort them to Hyderabad.
His public image was totally ruined and reputation was mutilated.
The respondent, in his petition for divorce, pleaded that after abandoning formal education, he pursued his career in music treating it as a companycept of bhakti or devotion.
It was averred that as the husband had gained reputation, his parents and other relatives thought of a second marriage so that he companyld get enormous dowry.
As tradition would warrant, she went to her parental home for delivery where a male child was born on 30th of May, 1995.
She denied the interruption in the practice sessions and companytroverted the factum of maltreatment.
The aforesaid aspect of his life was number liked by his wife and she always interrupted hurling abuses at him.
She threw tantrums only with the exclusive purpose that she should dominate the relationship and have her own way.
It was further pleaded that the grounds mentioned in the petition were vexatious and frivolous and, therefore, there was numberjustification for grant of a decree of divorce.
She returned to Chennai on 4.10.1995 and there she lived with her husband till 3.1.1996.
Despite his best efforts to make his wife understand the family tradition and show reverence to the seniors in the sphere of music, she remained obstinate in her attitude and chose to walk away causing him number only embarrassment in public but also humiliation which affected his reputation and self respect.
She had companymunicated with her friends that she would like to see her husband behind bars on the ground of dowry harassment.
Though she was expected, as per the customs, to show respect towards elders and to the senior artists, yet, throwing all traditional values to the wind, she would walk away by creating a scene to his utter embarrassment.
However, the Bench, apart from companycurring with the grant of permanent alimony, directed the respondent husband to pay a sum of maintenance amounting to Rs.12,500/ to the appellant wife and her son from the date of order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad till the date of the order passed by the High Court.
She denied the scandalous allegations and stated that she was proud of her husbands accomplishments.
With the efflux of time, the discord aggravated and the wife became more aggressive and did number allow her husband to go near her or the child.
She justified her filing of petition before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for grant of maintenance as he was absolutely careless and negligent to look after her and the child.
568 of 1997 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for brevity the Act in the Principal Family Court, Chennai for restitution of companyjugal rights.
Being grieved by the aforesaid decision of the learned Family Judge, the wife preferred two appeals.
All efforts made by her as well as by her parents to discuss with her husband and his family members to find out a solution went in vain.
The learned Family Judge jointly tried both the cases and, on the basis of the evidence brought on record, dismissed the application for restitution of companyjugal rights preferred by the wife and allowed the petition of the husband for dissolution of marriage and held that the child would remain in the custody of the mother on the principle that welfare of the child is paramount, and further the husband was number entitled to return of jewels or any other item from the wife in the absence of any companyent evidence in that regard.
While she was at Hyderabad, she spread rumours among the relatives and friends pertaining to his fidelity, character and habits.
The case of the wife in her application for restitution of marriage is that on 3.1.1996, her father in law, without her companysent, took her to her parental home and, thereafter, the husband without any justifiable reason withdrew from her society.
It was averred that in view of the treatment meted out to the husband, dissolution of marriage was the only solution and number restitution of companyjugal rights.
The facts requisite to be stated for adjudication of the appeals are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 19.11.1994 at Tirupathi according to Hindu rites and customs.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
The appellant wife instituted F.C.O.P. No.
Hence, the present two appeals have been preferred by special leave assailing the companymon judgment passed by the High Court in both the appeals.
After entering into wedlock, they lived together at Vadapalani, Chennai.
5 lacs each to the wife and her minor son within a month.
The respondent husband filed F.C.O.P. No.
