Case Note & Summary
The appellant, S. Sam Sundar, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, challenging the judgment and decree dated April 8, 2015, passed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore, in I.D.O.P. No. 36 of 2008, which dismissed his petition for divorce. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent, S. Anitha, was solemnized on September 5, 2007, according to Christian rites and customs under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. The appellant alleged that the respondent concealed her age (being seven years older), belonged to a different caste (Kammavar Naidu while he was Adi-Dravidar), scolded his parents, led a wayward life, left the matrimonial home without information, and lodged a complaint with the All Women Police Station, causing cruelty and reasonable apprehension that living with her would be harmful. The respondent admitted the marriage but denied the allegations, stating that the marriage was based on mutual love, she converted to Christianity, and she was subjected to cruelty by the appellant and his parents. She claimed that the appellant avoided the marriage under parental influence, leading her to file a police complaint, which was withdrawn after the appellant agreed to marry her. The respondent also alleged that the appellant demanded money and that her parents gave 40 sovereigns of gold jewels after the marriage. The trial court dismissed the divorce petition, finding no proof of cruelty or desertion. On appeal, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision, holding that the appellant failed to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The court noted that the appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to show that the respondent's conduct caused reasonable apprehension of harm, and the respondent's willingness to live with the appellant was evident. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Divorce - Cruelty - Section 10, Indian Divorce Act, 1869 - The court examined whether allegations of age concealment, caste differences, and filing of police complaint constitute cruelty. Held that the petitioner failed to prove cruelty as the evidence showed the respondent was willing to live with the petitioner and the police complaint was withdrawn. The court emphasized that cruelty must be of such a nature as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the respondent. (Paras 3-10) B) Family Law - Divorce - Desertion - Section 10, Indian Divorce Act, 1869 - The court considered whether the respondent's departure from the matrimonial home amounted to desertion. Held that the petitioner did not prove that the respondent left without reasonable cause or against his wish. The evidence indicated that the petitioner himself avoided the marriage and the respondent was willing to cohabit. (Paras 4-11) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Age Concealment - The court noted that the petitioner alleged the respondent concealed her age, but no evidence was produced to substantiate this claim. Held that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to prove the allegations, and failure to do so results in dismissal of the petition. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant/petitioner has made out a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869?
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated April 8, 2015, passed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore, in I.D.O.P. No.36 of 2008, is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Cruelty under Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act
- 1869 requires grave and weighty conduct
- not mere incompatibility or caste differences
- burden of proof lies on petitioner
- desertion must be without reasonable cause and against wish of petitioner
- age concealment not proven
- withdrawal of police complaint does not constitute cruelty.
