1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.09.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.404 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Jeevanantham .. Appellant/Respondent Vs. Nirmala Santhi .. Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1867, against the fair and decretal order dated 08.01.2010 passed in I.D.O.P.No.197 of 2006 by the District Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. For Appellant .. Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss For Respondent .. Mr.T.Selvakumaran JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the order dated 08.01.2010 passed in I.D.O.P.No.197 of 2006 by the District Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 2. The respondent herein as petitioner has filed the petition in question under Sections 10(1)(ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1867 wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole respondent. 3. It is stated in the petition that the respondent has married the petitioner on 09.06.1993 in Christian form. After marriage for a period of nine months, both of them have lived as husband and wife. The respondent has used to torture the petitioner in so many ways. The petitioner has lodged a complaint in All Women Police Station, Kuzhithurai. From 16.01.1997, both the petitioner and respondent are living separately. Since the respondent has caused cruelty to the petitioner and also deserted her, the present petition has been filed for getting divorce. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the respondent, it is stated that after marriage both of them have lived as husband and wife peacefully for a period four years. It is false to say that the respondent has used to torture the petitioner. The petitioner has acted according to the tunes of her parents as well as brothers. The petitioner has given false complaint in All Women Police Station, Kuzhithurai. There is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. On the basis of the available evidence on record, the Court below has allowed the petition and thereby dissolved the marriage held in between the petitioner and respondent. Against the order of divorce, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred at the instance of the respondent as appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent has contended that the present petition has been filed under two grounds namely cruelty and desertion and in order to prove the same no acceptable evidence has been forthcoming on the side of the respondent/ petitioner and the Court below without considering the available evidence on record has erroneously allowed the petition and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner has contended that the respondent has married the petitioner on 09.06.1993 and after marriage both of them have lived happily for a period of nine months and subsequently a considerable change has occurred in the conduct of the respondent and he used to torture the petitioner to maximum extent and under the said circumstance the petitioner has lodged a complaint in All Women Police Station, Kuzhithurai and from 16.01.1997 both of them are living separately and under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed on two grounds namely cruelty as well as desertion and in order to prove the same on the side of the petitioner trustworthy evidence has been let in and the Court below after considering the evidence available on record has rightly allowed the petition and therefore the order of divorce granted by the Court below need not be interfered with. 8. As stated supra, the present petition has been filed mainly on two grounds namely cruelty and desertion. 9. The consistent stand taken on the side of the petitioner is that the respondent has married her on 09.06.1993 and after marriage for a period nine months both of them have lived as husband and wife happily and subsequently the respondent has used to torture her and from 16.01.1997 both of them are living separately. The petitioner has been examined as P.W.1 and she clearly deposed to the effect that the respondent has caused cruelty and also deserted her. On the side of the petitioner Exs.P.1 to P.3 have been filed. Ex.P.2 is a certified copy of Divorce Deed. Ex.P.3 is an order of separation issued by the concerned Bishop. Therefore it is needless to say that even before coming to the Court, both the petitioner and respondent have decided to dissolve their marriage. 10. Considering the fact that the present petition has been filed on the grounds of cruelty as well as desertion and also considering that already both the petitioner and respondent have decided to dissolve their marriage, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference and altogether the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 11. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the order passed in I.D.O.P.No.197 of 2006 by the District Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI Act) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. +1cc to M/s.J.Balameenakshi, Advocate SR.No.30548 +1cc to M/s.T.Selvakumaran, Advocate SR.No.30754 C.M.A(MD)No.404 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 smn PA/20.09.2011/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/