Madras High Court: Boggy Of Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage Can’t Be Used To Advantage Party Solely Responsible For Tearing Down Marital Relationship

The Court upheld the Family Court's decision, which dismissed the husband’s divorce Petition while allowing the wife’s Petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The Madurai Bench dismissed the Appeal filed by the husband seeking divorce from his wife and directed him to pay maintenance for their child.

A Division Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima held, “The boggy of irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be used to the advantage of a party who is solely responsible for tearing down the marital relationship. The appellant's misdemeanours were duly taken note of by the learned Judge of the Family Court. We decline to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.”

Advocate C.Vakeeswaran appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate T.A.Punithan represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The husband, who was employed as a teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, alleged that the wife left the matrimonial home in 2008, which, according to him, amounted to cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). He filed for divorce, while the wife filed a Petition under Section 9 of the HMA seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

The Family Court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition while allowing the wife’s Petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

The Husband argued that the parties had been living separately for several years, which, according to him, constituted cruelty and was a ground for dissolution of marriage. He alleged that the wife did not participate in household chores such as cooking, threatened to return to her parental home or commit suicide, took back all her jewelry, and was indifferent towards him.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court noted that the husband had not maintained his wife and child despite earning a substantial salary. It further noted that the wife had to file a Petition seeking maintenance and that the husband had demanded a paternity test for the child. The DNA test confirmed that the husband was the biological father, but he still failed to provide financial support.

“From this single circumstance, we would conclude that it is the act of the appellant that amounts to cruelty. The appellant admits his marriage with the respondent. A child was born through the lawful wedlock. It is really too much on the part of the appellant to question the paternity of the child. The appellant has virtually impeached the integrity and chastity of the respondent,” the Bench remarked.

The Court stated, “It is true that the parties have been remaining separate for the last several years. But on this ground, we are not inclined to grant relief to the appellant. The foregoing facts would clearly establish that the appellant miserably failed to discharge his obligation as a married man. Even though the girl child had been begotten, he did not even bother to attend to its most elementary needs.”

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhavathi @ Prabhamani v. Lakshmeesha wherein it was held that “irretrievable breakdown of marriage can't be used to the advantage of the party responsible for the collapse of marriage.”

Consequently, the Court held, “The appellant has not paid a single pie towards maintenance of his girl child for more than 15 years. The appellant questioned her very paternity by filing a petition before the Court below. Even after the DNA results confirmed his paternity, he did not chose to make amends. At no point of time, the appellant took any initiative for settling his differences with his wife. The appellant lived together with the wife for hardly eight months. During this period, the respondent suffered abortion and conceived again. In this background, we are of the view that the respondent's version deserves greater credence.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: X v. Y (C.M.A.(MD)NO.569 OF 2021)

Click here to read/download the Judgment