False Dowry Complaint Alone Does Not Constitute Cruelty’ in Divorce: Madras High Court ‘”
Madras High Court dismisses husband’s appeal, emphasizing lack of evidence in claims of cruelty and desertion under Section 55 of The Divorce Act, 1869.
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal by a husband seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The judgment, delivered by Justices R. Subramanian and R. Sakthivel, affirms the lower court’s decision, stressing the necessity for concrete evidence to substantiate claims of marital cruelty and desertion.
In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 710 of 2014, A. Raja @ Moses Rajan (Appellant/Petitioner) challenged the dismissal of his divorce petition by the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu. Filed in IDOP No. 165 of 2003, the petition cited cruelty and desertion by his wife, R. Santhosham (Respondent). The appellant alleged that his wife lodged a false dowry complaint and refused to live with him, constituting cruelty and desertion.
Allegations of Cruelty: The appellant argued that the respondent’s dowry complaint constituted cruelty. However, the court found no evidence to support this allegation. “The petitioner has neither produced the copy of the complaint nor taken steps to send for the complaint from All Women Police Station,” the judgment noted. Furthermore, the court observed that the respondent’s complaint aimed at reconciliation rather than prosecution, thus filing the complaint did not amount to cruelty.
Evidence of Desertion: The appellant also claimed that the respondent deserted him by refusing to live with him. The court found insufficient evidence to support this claim, highlighting the respondent’s efforts to reconcile and live with the appellant. “The evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 would show that the respondent has tried to reconcile and live with the petitioner, however, the petitioner did not accept the respondent for reasons best known to him,” the court observed.
The judgment underscored the principles governing cruelty and desertion in matrimonial disputes. It reiterated that allegations of cruelty must be substantiated with significant evidence. “In the absence of proof that the respondent filed a false dowry demand complaint, the act of filing a complaint for reconciliation cannot be deemed cruelty,” the court stated. Regarding desertion, the court emphasized the need to establish ‘animus deserendi’ (intention to desert), which the appellant failed to prove.
Justice R. Sakthivel remarked, “The petitioner miserably failed to establish ‘animus deserendi’ of the respondent. In view of the evidence of the respondent, the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent caused cruelty to him and that she alone deserted him.”The dismissal of the appeal by the Madras High Court highlights the judiciary’s demand for robust evidence in matrimonial disputes. This judgment reinforces the necessity for concrete proof in claims of cruelty and desertion, setting a significant precedent for future cases under The Divorce Act, 1869.
Date of Decision: April 30, 2024
Raja @ Moses Rajan vs. R. Santhosham
