R NATARAJAN Vs. SUJATHA VASUDEVAN
LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-143
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on
August 29,2011
R.NATARAJAN
Appellant
VERSUS
SUJATHA VASUDEVAN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
AMARJIT KAUR V. BABU SINGH [REFERRED TO]SHRAWAN KUMAR GIRI V. RITA DEVI. [REFERRED TO]
VICTOR SEBASTAIN V. THORULATHA [REFERRED TO]
SUJATA UDAY PATIL V. UDAY MADHUKAR PATIL [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRAN V. R.DHANALAXMI [REFERRED TO]
ARUNDHATI DEEPAK PATIL V. DEEPAK BHAURAO PATIL [REFERRED TO]
POONAM MEHTA ALIAS POONAM PRASAD V. NARESH PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
B.R. SAYAL (CAPT.) V. SMT. RAM SAYAL. [REFERRED TO]
LACHMAN UTAMCHAND KIRPALANI VS. MEENA ALIAS MOTA [REFERRED TO]
SIRAJMOHMEDKHAN JANMOHAMADKHAN VS. HAFIZUNNISA YASINK HAN [REFERRED TO]
SAROJ RANI VS. SUDARSHAN KUMAR CHADHA [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHA RANI VS. MADHUKAR REDDI [REFERRED TO]
ADHYATMA BHATTAR ALWAR VS. ADHYATMA BHATTAR SRI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRI PANDEY VS. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
SAMAR GHOSH VS. JAYA GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN KAPUR VS. SUDHIR KAPUR [REFERRED TO]
VIMLA MEHRA VS. K S MEHRA [REFERRED TO]
NEELU KOHLI V. NAVEEN KOHLI [REFERRED TO]
ANNA SAHEB VS. TARABAI [REFERRED TO]
K PALANISAMY VS. P SAMIATHAL [REFERRED TO]
P KALYANASUNDARAM VS. K PAQUIALATCHAMY [REFERRED TO]
SUKHRAM YADAV VS. NIRUPAMA YADEV [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER PAL VS. KANWALJIT KAUR [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
M.VENUGOPAL, J. -
(1.)THE Appellant/Respondent (Husband) has preferred these instant two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals as against the Common Order dated 07.07.2009 in O.P.No.519 of 2008 and O.P.No.993 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai.
(2.)THE trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, while passing the Common Order in O.P.Nos.993/2007 and 519/2008 on 07.07.2009, has, among other things, observed that '... In this case on hand, both the parties are throwing the allegations against each other and both of them did not adduce any documentary evidence to prove their allegations. Further in this case, the allegations made by the Petitioner would be in the nature of normal wear and tear between the parties, that will not amount to cruelty. Hence, considering the age of the parties and the future welfare of the child, since the respondent/wife is willing to live with the petitioner/husband and filed the Restitution of Conjugal Rights Petition before this Court, this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty etc.' and resultantly, dismissed the O.P.No.993 of 2007 filed by the Appellant/Husband and allowed the O.P.No.519 of 2008 filed by the Respondent/Wife by ordering the restitution of conjugal rights.
Being dissatisfied with the Common Order passed by the II Additional Family Court, Chennai dated 07.07.2009 in O.P.Nos.993 of 2007 and 519 of 2008, the Appellant/Husband preferred these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
The Point that arises for consideration in C.M.A.No.3769 of 2010 is: Whether the Respondent/Wife is entitled to seek the relief of Restitution of Conjugal Rights as per Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? The Point that arises for consideration in C.M.A.No.1775 of 2010 is: Whether the Appellant/Husband is entitled to claim the relief of Divorce against the Respondent/Wife? The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Points in both CMAs:
(3.)THE Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Husband contends that the Common Order of the trial Court passed in O.P.Nos.993 of 2007 and 519 of 2008 are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.
It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Husband that both the parties never had any understanding right from the first day of the marriage, which was not taken into account by the trial Court.
(2.)THE trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, while passing the Common Order in O.P.Nos.993/2007 and 519/2008 on 07.07.2009, has, among other things, observed that '... In this case on hand, both the parties are throwing the allegations against each other and both of them did not adduce any documentary evidence to prove their allegations. Further in this case, the allegations made by the Petitioner would be in the nature of normal wear and tear between the parties, that will not amount to cruelty. Hence, considering the age of the parties and the future welfare of the child, since the respondent/wife is willing to live with the petitioner/husband and filed the Restitution of Conjugal Rights Petition before this Court, this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty etc.' and resultantly, dismissed the O.P.No.993 of 2007 filed by the Appellant/Husband and allowed the O.P.No.519 of 2008 filed by the Respondent/Wife by ordering the restitution of conjugal rights.
Being dissatisfied with the Common Order passed by the II Additional Family Court, Chennai dated 07.07.2009 in O.P.Nos.993 of 2007 and 519 of 2008, the Appellant/Husband preferred these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
The Point that arises for consideration in C.M.A.No.3769 of 2010 is: Whether the Respondent/Wife is entitled to seek the relief of Restitution of Conjugal Rights as per Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? The Point that arises for consideration in C.M.A.No.1775 of 2010 is: Whether the Appellant/Husband is entitled to claim the relief of Divorce against the Respondent/Wife? The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Points in both CMAs:
(3.)THE Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Husband contends that the Common Order of the trial Court passed in O.P.Nos.993 of 2007 and 519 of 2008 are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.
It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Husband that both the parties never had any understanding right from the first day of the marriage, which was not taken into account by the trial Court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.