T.Anne Esther Jasmine v. J.Godwin Saintly

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.10.2024 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN C.M.A.(MD)Nos.289 & 290 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.3771 & 3773 of 2024 In C.M.A(MD)No.289 of 2024: T.Anne Esther Jasmine.

... Appellant vs J.Godwin Saintly.

... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of C.P.C read with Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2023 in I.D.O.P.No.78 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Madurai. For appellant : Mr.K.Samidurai For Respondent : Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan for Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi In C.M.A(MD)No.290 of 2024: T.Anne Esther Jasmine.

... Appellant vs J.Godwin Saintly.

... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of C.P.C read with Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, against the Page No. 1 of 12 judgment and decree dated 22.12.2023 in I.D.O.P.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Madurai. For appellant : Mr.K.Samidurai For Respondent : Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan for Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi ***** C O M M O N J U D G M E N T The captioned appeals C.M.A.(MD)Nos.289 & 290 of 2024 have been filed by the wife aggrieved by the grant of decree of divorce on the petition filed by the respondent herein and dismissal of her petition for restitution of the conjugal rights, respectively.

¶2The facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as follows: a. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 27.12.2019 in the presence of elders of both their families. b. Disputes arose between the parties within few months from the date of marriage. According to the respondent, he was aggrieved since the appellant did not perform her conjugal rights; that she was always engaged in her mobile phone; and that on one occasion, he found out from her phone that she had sent certain messages to her friends, in which she Page No. 2 of 12 had made some defamatory statements against the respondent; and that the respondent also found a diary maintained by the appellant, in which she had stated about love affair prior to marriage with a third party. c. The appellant filed a counter denying the averments stating that the casual messages sent to her friends were misinterpreted by the respondent; that the respondent, who had not treated the appellant with care and affection, used to scold the appellant in the presence of others; that the mother-in-law of the appellant had always accused her for not bringing sufficient jewels and dowry; and that she was always a dutiful wife and hence, prayed for dismissal of the divorce petition.

¶3Before the Tribunal, the respondent examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P16. The appellant examined R.W.1 and R.W.2 and did not mark any documents.

¶4The Court below, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, held that the respondent had established cruelty and therefore, passed a decree of divorce and dismissed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Page No. 3 of 12

¶5The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the petty quarrels between the husband and wife have been exaggerated; that innocuous messages sent to her friends have been treated as causing cruelty to the respondent, which is erroneous; that the Trial Court ought not to have believed the entries made in the diary to infer that the respondent suffered cruelty by the appellant and hence, prayed for setting aside the decree of divorce.

¶6The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, submitted that the messages sent by the appellant have been proved by the respondent, which are highly defamatory in nature and those messages would reveal that the respondent suffered cruelty; and that the Trial Court had also rightly considered the entries in the diary, which would suggest that the finding with regard to the cruelty is justified and no interference is called for.

¶7The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is 'whether the respondent is entitled to the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty?' Page No. 4 of 12

¶8The Trial Court had extracted the messages sent by the respondent to her friends. The relevant messages read as follows: • ehd; Vd; rhtDk; me;j Mis rhtog;nghk;D " action y; ,w';fpl;nld;. • ,e;j Mis ,g;goj;jhd; vd;dhy; punish gz;z KofpwJ. • rhg;ghl;oy; fhuj;ij ms;spg; nghl;L tpLntd; mtd; ngrhky; rhg;gpl;Ltpl;L ngha;tpLthd;. • ,e;j MS igj;jpako mJf;Ff;Tl ntw vtidahtJ ,Gj;Jf;

bfhz;L

nghapUg;ngd; mg;nghJ ,e;j epiyik te;jpUf;fhJ. • ,';fy;y xz;Zk; elf;fy mtid njhltpl;lnj ,y;iy. mtd; nehe;J fplf;fpwhd;. • vdf;F Divorce MfpLk;. • ,e;j Ms; te;jpUr;rp/ ,dp mobile use gz;z KoahJ. mtid ,g;goj;jhz;o vd;dhy punish gz;z Koa[J/ rhg;ghl;onya[k; ntiyia fhl;Lntd;/ kpsfha; bghoia mjpfkha; nghl;L tpl;LWntd;. mikjpaha; jpd;Dl;L ngha; tpLthd;/ • g[tp ngrhky; Rdpak; tr;rpUo/ ahUf;Fk; bjupahJ/ • ,e;j MS vd; birthday f;F vJ ntz;Lk; vd;W nfl;ghd;/ ehd; corona ntz;Lk;D nfl;ngd;/ ,y;nydh blood donate gz;zDk; M!;gj;jpup nghapl;L corona vLj;Jl;L te;JUntd;/ $hypjhd;/ • ,e;j MSf;F ehisapypUe;J 10 ehisf;F work from home vd;d ghtk; gz;zpdndh bjupatpy;iy/ Page No. 5 of 12 • ,e;j MS vd;id rhft[k; tplkhl;lhd;o/ ,e;j rdp tPl;iltpl;L ntspnaa[k; nghf khl;nld;FJ/ • me;j MS Saturday hit I For;rpl;lhd;. mJ Rk;kh Scene o V';fpl;lna film Xl;odh Rk;kh spray gz;zpf;fpl;L fhiyapny nrj;JUntd;W Scene nghl;oUe;jhd;/ Fof;ff; Tl ,y;iy. mg;g[wk; reel I epWj;jpl;lhd;. • Mdh xU ehs; nrhd;nd mk;kh. mg;ghl;nl 3 hours M ngrpndd;. vd; life nthl important decision vLf;f. mg;ngh vd; ngr;ir nfl;fy. mt';f ngrpdJ jhd; correct vd nrhd;dh';f. mg;gt[k; ehd; brhd;ndd; re;njhrkh ,Uf;fkhl;nld; ,J ele;jhD/ but mt';f nfl;fy life khwpUr;rp mjdhny/ • me;j MS psychoo. fpWf;fd;. ehd; ey;yh te;J nftykhf khl;oUf;nfd;/"

¶9The appellant has not disputed the above messages sent to her friends. The admission made in the above messages are sufficient to hold that the respondent suffered cruelty. The appellant has gone to the extent of accusing the respondent as a psycho and also admitted that she had denied conjugal rights, to the respondent.

¶10That apart, the appellant had also made entries in her diary, in Page No. 6 of 12 which she had admitted her relationship with a third party. The appellant had not denied the entries in the diary but sought to explain the same by stating that he was a colleague and was like a brother to her. The question is not whether the appellant had any illicit intimacy with another person. But the real question is whether those messages would cause cruelty to the husband. The relevant messages read as follows: ehDk; vd;Dila ilupapy; eh " ';fs; gPr;rpw;F brd;nwhk;. mg;nghJ fpup vd;Dila Jg;gl;lhit Jilj;Jtpl;L. vy;nyhUk; khw;wp khw;wp nghl;L nfhz;nl Rw;wpajhft[k;. vy;nyhUk;

itj;jpUe;jjhft[k;.

mij

cgnahfg; gLj;jpajhft[k; ilupapy; vGjpa[s;nsd; vd;why; rupjhd;/"

¶11The above deposition in the cross-examination would show that the appellant had admitted that she made the entries. The entries would certainly cause mental cruelty. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the judgment of the Trial Court, in which the certain other messages were also extracted to conclude that the respondent suffered cruelty, cannot be faulted. Therefore, the decree of divorce granted to the appellant deserves to be confirmed.

¶12However, at the time of argument, it was submitted by the Page No. 7 of 12 learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent has not returned the jewels weighing 70 sovereigns, which were handed over to the respondent at the time of marriage. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, denied the said fact and submitted that only 35 sovereigns of jewels were handed over; and that they had gifted nearly 12 sovereigns of jewels to the appellant at the time of marriage.

¶13This Court is of the view that the said dispute can be resolved by the Civil Court, if the parties are advised to approach the Civil Court. However, to show his bonafides, the respondent, today, handed over 35 sovereigns of jewels to the appellant, which is acknowledged by the appellant and the same is recorded.

¶14The memo filed by the respondent reads as follows: "1. The Respondent submits that he is handing over 23 Sovereign of Gold Jewels in the following descriptions namely: i. Kal Kaappu - 4 ii. Small Kal Kaappu - 3 iii. Chain with Cross -1 iv. Necklace Plain -1 in total, all the above articles are weighing 184 Grams. Page No. 8 of 12

¶2The Respondent states that he is handing over another 12 Sovereign of Gold, which was given to the Respondent at the time of marriage, are also handing over to the Appellant/Wife with following descriptions i. Chain with Cross - 1 ii. Ring - 1 iii. Bracelet - 1 all the above article are weighing 96 Grams in total gold jewels of 35 Sovereigns are handed over to the Appellant today. iv. The Respondent submits that he will ready to hand over all the house hold articles to the Appellant at any time the convenient of them. Either the Appellant or on her behalf any one can come with prior intimation to collect the house hold articles after verifying the same. v. The Respondent submits that the 12 Sovereign of Gold Jewels, which were given to the Appellant at the time of marriage with the following descriptions:- i. Thali Chain -1 - 62.58 Gram ii. Necklace – 1 - 18.42. Gram, iii. Ring -1 - 6.09 Gram iv. Ring -1 - 10.13 Gram are with Appellant The Respondent prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept the above memo and thus render justice. Page No. 9 of 12 Dated at Madurai, on this 23rd day of October, 2024"

¶15The appellant has not disputed para 1 to 4 of the memo. As regards para 5, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the necklace and the ring mentioned as item Nos.2 and 3 in para 5 were not handed over to the appellant. However, this Court is of the view that all the issues can be decided by the Civil Court if the parties choose to approach the Civil Court.

¶16In view of the decision taken in the appeal challenging the grant of divorce, the question of considering the petition for restitution of conjugal rights does not arise and consequently, the CMA challenging the order passed in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights also cannot be entertained.

¶17In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

23.10.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Page No. 10 of 12 apd To

¶1The I Additional District Judge, Madurai.

¶2The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. SUNDER MOHAN,J apd Page No. 11 of 12

23.10.2024 Page No. 12 of 12