VINOD KUMAR SUBBIAHversusSARASWATHI PALANIAPPAN

                         [2015] 5 S.C.R. 800


A                    VINOD KUMAR SUBBIAH
                             v.
                   SARASWATHI PALANIAPPAN
                   (Civil Appeal Nos.5511-5512 of 2014)
B
                           APRIL 24, 2015
    [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.)

          Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 13(1 )(ia) - Dissolution of
C   marriage - Mental cruelty - Divorce petition filed by hus-
    band alleging cruelty by wife - Subsequently, wife filing for
    restitution of conjugal rights uls. 9 and also sought mainte-
    nance - Trial court holding that wife was not entitled to res-
    titution of conjugal rights, ordered for dissolution of marriage
D   and fixed maintenance at Rs. 25,0001- pm- However, High
    Court dismissed the petition for divorce holding that the a/-
    legations amounted to the normal "wear and tear'' in life and
    allowed petition for restitution of conjugal rights- On appeal,
    held: Abusing the spouse as being born from a prostitute,
E   summoning the police on false or flimsy grounds and mak-
    ing it impossible for any close relatives to visit or reside in
    the matrimonial home cannot be termed as "wear and tear"
    of family life but would result in cruelty to the other spouse
F   - Husband duly pleaded instances of mental cruelty which
    he proved in evidence and documents - Trial court exam-
    ined the same and came to the reasoned conclusion that
    the actions of the wife amounted to cruelty- Thus, the High
    Court was not justified in setting aside the conclusions ar-
G   rived at by the trial court without giving substantiated rea-
    sons - Order passed by the High Court set aside and that of
    the trial courl restored.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
H 5511-5512 of 2014
                        800
       VINOD KUMAR SUBBIAH v. SARASWATHI                    801
                 PALANIAPPAN

    From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2013 of the A
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in C.M.A. (MD) No. 210
& 211 of 2012.

   lndu Malhotra, Eesha Mohpatra, Vikas Mehta for the
Appellant.                                            B

    Shadan Farasat for the Respondent.

    The judgment of the Court was delivered by

     VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J. 1. These Appeals assail the C
Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras, Bench at Madurai, delivered on
13.3.2013, setting aside the Judgment dated 25.8.2011 of the
Trial Court. The Impugned Judgment dismissed the divorce
petition filed by the Appellant.                             D

      2. The Appellant and the Respondent were married on
28.6.2004 and moved to the U.S. on 9.7.2004. They visited
Chennai in October 2005 and June 2006. During the latter
visit, the Respondent was three months pregnant and left for E
her parental home in Madurai on 10.6.2006 where she gave
birth to a male child on 5.12.2006. The Appellant subsequently
filed for divorce under Section 13n )(ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act on 30.4.2007.
                                                              F
     3. The case put forward by the Appellant is that the
Respondent was verbally abusive; she would insult his family;
she would threaten to lodge false police complaints; and she
would threaten to commit suicide placing the blame on the
Appellant and his family. After she left for her parental home G
in June 2006, the Appellant attempted to bring her back to her
matrimonial home but she refused. The Appellant claims that
he has been put through intolerable mental agony and can no
longer continue to be married to the Respondent.
                                                              H
802       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A        4. The Respondent denied these allegations and claimed
  that she and the Appellant lived happily in the U.S., and she
  only went to her parental home in June 2006 for her child to be
  born there. She has pleaded that she returned to Chennai with
  her child from March to April 2007, that the divorce petition
B was completely unexpected and was the result of a
  misunderstanding between her family and that of the Appellant.
  She subsequently filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal
  rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, praying that
  the Appellant be directed to take her back to her conjugal home,
C which she pleaded is in the U.S. She alleged that her husband
  is living a wayward life, that her father-in-law misbehaved with
  her, and that her parents-in-law were negligent with her infant
  child and asked her to leave the house when she questioned
  them about this. She also filed a maintenance petition seeking
0
  Rs. 2 lakhs per month as maintenance.

        5. The Trial Court heard all three petitions together and
  examined the evidence submitted by the parties at length. The
  Appellant has deposed that when his sister came to the U.S.,
E she initially stayed with him and the Respondent. However,
  the Respondent did not like having her in the house, so she
  locked the Respondent and his sister out of the house, was
  abusive towards them and told them that they belonged to a
F "prostitute family". Eventually the Appellant's sister was
  constrained to stay at a Lodge. The Respondent claimed that
  the dispute was because her sister-in-law tried to make her
  join her diamond business, which she did not want to do. The
  Trial Court found no truth in the argument of the Respondent,
G in light of the fact that she has no background or knowledge
  of the diamond business. Furthermore, the Appellant has
  deposed that when his brother came to the U.S. to study, he
  also initially stayed at the Appellant's house. However, it is in
  evidence that the Respondent called the Appellant at work
H
        VINOD KUMAR SUBBIAH v. SARASWATHI                             803
          PALANIAPPAN [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]

alleging that his brother was knocking on her door, thus implying      A
that he was behaving in an untoward manner. She abused the
Appellant and his family in the presence of his brother and
threatened to file a police complaint. The Appellant has
deposed that he was forced to make his brother stay
elsewhere. In a subsequent event, the Appellant informed the           B
Respondent that his parents would be coming to the U.S. The
Respondent was verbally and physically abusive, and called
the police alleging domestic violence. The Appellant was given
a warning by the Police. The Respondent claimed that the
incident took place because the Appellant was having an affair         C
with a woman named Solai. She claimed that he took her to
Solai's house that evening and then wanted to go back at night,
which is why she called the police. The Trial Court has justifiably
highlighted that summoning the police was serious because
                                                                       0
the Appellant was in a foreign country and didn't know the laws
and procedure. Further, the allegation that he was having an
affair was not accepted, as it was unbelievable that the
Respondent had previously not told anyone about Solai and
further that it never came up du ring the attempted compromise         E
between the families of the two parties. The Respondent
claimed that after having the child, she came to live with the
Appellant, which the Appellant denied. The Respondent also
alleged that while she was living with the Appellant's family,
his parents took the child who was only three months old away          F
for six hours. By the time they brought him back, he was
unconscious due to starvation. When the Respondent
questioned them about this, they asked her to leave the house
with the child, even though it was late in the night. The Trial
Court found this allegation entirely unbelievable. Her allegation      G
that the father of the Appellant started misbehaving with her
and went to the extent of pulling her hands was also found to
be false. The Trial Court also took into consideration the voice
mails and emails from the Respondent to the Appellant, which
were not treated as the main evidence but as evidence intended         H
804         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A to substantiate the oral evidence. It was held that the evidence
  and the submissions of the Respondent indicate that she was
  unwilling to live in the Appellant's house in Chennai, and that
  she wanted him to leave his family in India and live in the U.S.
  with her. It is pertinent to note that the Appellant had lost his job
B in the U.S. and was unemployed and consequently had to set
  up residence in Chennai. In light of these circumstances, it
  was found that the Respondent is not entitled to conjugal rights.
  An order of dissolution of marriage was passed and
  maintenance was fixed at Rs. 25,000 per month.
c
           6. The High Court, however, held that the Appellant's
      allegations in his divorce petition were no more than "the
      ordinary wear and tear" that takes place in a marriage. It
      observed that the Appellant did not give details of the events
D     of abuse by the Respondent towards his family or the cruelty
      that was meted out to him in the U.S. in his main petition or his
      subsequent counter affidavits. It was only after filing the petition
      that the Appellant had produced copies of the abusive
      voicemails and emails he received from the Respondent. The
 E    High Court noted that the Trial Court did not need to strictly
      adhere to hard and fast rules while entertaining evidence, but
      nevertheless held that the Trial Court had acted in haste in
      allowing the Appellant's allegations. The High Court found that
 F    the Trial Court, instead of considering whether the Appellant
      had established cruelty by adducing evidence, took certain
      answers from the Respondent's Chief examination and cross-
      examination out of context and held that a case of cruelty was
      made out. The High Court stated that in a matrimonial
G     relationship, µarties must be prepared to subject themselves
      to the normal wear and tear of life, and that the situation at
      hand was no more than that. The divorce petition was thus
      dismissed and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was
      allowed.
 H
        VINOD KUMAR SUBBIAH v. SARASWATHI                           805
          PALANIAPPAN [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]

     7. We have carefully considered the matter, and find that       A
we are unable to uphold the conclusions of the High Court.
The Appellant had duly pleaded instances of mental cruelty
which he proved in evidence and documents. An examination
of the divorce petition makes it abundantly clear that various
allegations of cruelty were made out and a number of incidents       B
were mentioned therein. Further evidence was submitted
during the course of the Trial to substantiate these allegations,
which is in keeping with Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC.
Furthermore, we find that the Trial Court examined the evidence
at great length and came to the reasoned conclusion that the         C
actions of the Respondent amounted to cruelty. If a spouse
abuses the other as being born from a prostitute, this cannot
be termed as "wear and tear" of family life. Summoning the
police on false or flimsy grounds cannot also be similarly
                                                                     0
viewed. Making it impossible for any close relatives to visit or
reside in the matrimonial home would also indubitably result
in cruelty to the other spouse. After a cursory discussion of the
evidence which the Trial Court had discussed threadbare, the
High Court was not justified to set aside the conclusions arrived    E
at by the Trial Court without giving substantiated reasons.

    8. We thus allow these Appeals and set aside the
Impugned Order, but desist from imposing costs. The Trial
Court's decision granting dissolution of the marriage between F
the parties is hereby restored.

     9. We allow the Respondent's Application for
disbursement of the amount deposited by the Appellant
towards her legal expenses in pursuance of the Order dated
4.7.2013.                                                  G
Nidhi Jain                                      Appeals allowed.