Husband Not Including Wife And Children In Service Register, Denying Financial Assistance Is 'Cruelty': Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently observed that a husband who was not interested in living with his wife and children by not giving them any financial assistance and not including their names in the Railway Service register would be committing cruelty. Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji were dealing with an appeal preferred by a wife challenging a Family Court order...
The Madras High Court recently observed that a husband who was not interested in living with his wife and children by not giving them any financial assistance and not including their names in the Railway Service register would be committing cruelty.
Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji were dealing with an appeal preferred by a wife challenging a Family Court order granting divorce to the husband on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. While granting the divorce, the Family Court observed that the parties were living separately and the wife had made allegations of an illicit relationship against the husband which amounted to mental cruelty.
The court however noted that none of the reasons stated by the husband were proved as per law and in fact, the wife was able to show that it was the husband who had not discharged his duties even while the wife was willing to lead a peaceful life.
“None of the allegation that was averred by the husband as cruelty and nor proved in the manner known to law…. we find that she has demonstrated the cruelty at the hands of the husband to the effect that he is not interested to live with the wife and children by not giving any financial assistance and has not included the wife and children in the service register in the railways so as to enjoy the facilities as a family member. These admitted facts would go to show that it is the husband, who has committed cruelty and therefore, the wife was forced to live in the house of her father,” the court observed.
The court noted that the husband had moved the court for dissolution of marriage following a quarrel with the wife during their first daughter's puberty function. He had also made certain averments regarding desertion and submitted that they had been living separately for about 12 years.
The wife, on the other hand, submitted that she was willing to join the husband and sought for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife also informed the court that the husband had not returned to the home after the puberty function of their daughter and later when his brother filed a police complaint against her, the husband came to the police station and a compromise was arrived at to set up a separate house. She had also informed the court that the husband was not coming to the house and never helped or children in their education.
The court noted that the husband, who had claimed cruelty by his wife had to prove the same in the manner established by law. However, the court opined that the family judge had found a loophole and observing that the wife had not proved the illicit relationship, granted a divorce. According to the court, this approach of the Family judge was erroneous and liable to be set aside.
Noting that cruelty as stated by the husband was not proved in the manner known to law and none of the allegations in the pleadings or affidavit were proved, the court opined that the order of dissolution of marriage was legally unsustainable. The court thus set aside the order.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms.T.Banumathy
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.N.Madhava Govindan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Case No: CMA(MD) No.1121 of 2017