Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5511-5512 OF 2014   

VINOD KUMAR SUBBIAH                                              .…..APPELLANTS

Versus

SARASWATHI  PALANIAPPAN                                …..RESPONDENTS

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.

1 These Appeals assail  the 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.    

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

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 13(1)

(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 30.4.2007.

Page 2

2

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 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.  

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 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,

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 Rs. 2 lakhs per month as maintenance.

Page 3

3

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.,  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 “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, 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 alleging that  his  brother  was knocking on her  door, thus

implying  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

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

Page 4

4

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 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 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 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 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  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

Page 5

5

in the U.S. with her. It is pertinent to note that the Appellant had lost his job 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.  

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 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  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

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 relationship,

parties 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

Page 6

6

was  thus  dismissed  and  the  petition  for  restitution  of  conjugal  rights  was

allowed.  

7 We have carefully considered the matter, and find that 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 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 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 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 at by the Trial

Court without giving substantiated reasons.

Page 7

7

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 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.  

.................................................J.          [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]  

                  …….............................................J.

      [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; April 24,   2015.