Wife’s Domestic Violence Complaint Filed After Divorce Petition Amounts to Fresh Cruelty; Condonation Cannot Bar Relief: Madras HC [Read Judgment]

Chennai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that where a wife files a domestic violence complaint containing grave allegations against her husband and his family members after the husband has filed a divorce petition, such conduct constitutes fresh cruelty and cannot be neutralised by a prior act of condonation.

A Division Bench comprising Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima further held that the trial court’s dismissal of the divorce petition solely on the ground of condonation was improper, as it failed to take into account the respondent’s subsequent conduct. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, the order of the Family Court was set aside, and the marriage between the parties was dissolved.

The appeal was filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2020 passed by the Family Court, Thoothukudi, in H.M.O.P. No. 20 of 2020, whereby the petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, was dismissed.

The parties were married on 11.06.2000 at Thoothukudi in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and have two daughters, one of whom was born on 25.12.2002. In 2007, the appellant secured employment in Hyderabad, and the parties relocated there. Though they initially led a peaceful matrimonial life, the respondent subsequently began creating problems—allegedly damaging household articles, behaving aggressively, repeatedly threatening to commit suicide, and on several occasions consuming sleeping pills. She also frequently suspected the appellant’s character. The appellant alleged that, due to the mental agony caused by the respondent’s conduct, he developed a cardiac ailment and underwent treatment between 2012 and 2014.

The appellant further alleged that the respondent developed an illicit relationship with one Ramesh, who ran a photo studio in the locality, sold her jewellery and spent money on him, and on 08.06.2014, was found in his company inside the house while the children had been locked in a room. The respondent also allegedly sent threatening messages to the appellant and failed to properly care for the children. Consequently, the appellant resigned from his employment in 2015 and returned to Thoothukudi with the children. He lodged a complaint before Kolkonda Police Station on 15.05.2015, issued a legal notice seeking divorce on 20.05.2015, and thereafter filed the divorce petition on the ground of cruelty.

The respondent, however, denied all allegations. She contended that the appellant was a habitual drunkard and that his cardiac ailment was caused by excessive alcohol consumption, and further claimed that she had admitted him to hospital in 2012. She also alleged that the appellant failed to maintain the family and did not take up employment, and that while she was away writing an examination, the appellant took the children away. The respondent further stated that the complaint lodged at Kolkonda Police Station was closed after enquiry, and that the appellant himself subjected her to cruelty, which she tolerated for the sake of the children. She additionally contended that, in 2016, the parties had lived together as husband and wife for four to five days, thereby condoning any prior acts of cruelty, and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

The trial court disbelieved the allegation of adultery, noting that the alleged adulterer had not been impleaded as a party. It further held that the parties had lived together during the pendency of the divorce petition, thereby condoning the alleged cruelty, and dismissed the petition on these grounds.

Before the High Court, the appellant argued that the trial court erred in finding condonation on the basis of a brief period of cohabitation, particularly when the respondent had thereafter filed a domestic violence complaint containing serious and false allegations. It was submitted that such post-petition conduct amounted to fresh cruelty and ought to have been considered. The respondent’s counsel, on the other hand, maintained that the appellant had failed to prove cruelty, that cohabitation was evidenced by Ex.R1, and that the respondent remained willing to live with the appellant.

The High Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, noted several significant factors. First, on the question of adultery, the Court observed that the alleged adulterer had not been impleaded, and that the appellant primarily sought divorce on the ground of cruelty. Second, on the issue of cruelty, the Court found that while the respondent admitted the appellant’s cardiac ailment, she failed to produce documentary evidence to establish that it was caused by alcoholism rather than mental stress. The Court also noted that the domestic violence complaint filed after the divorce petition contained grave allegations—including that the appellant was a drunkard, unemployed, demanded money, attempted to kill her, and maintained illicit relationships with multiple women—and also implicated his aged parents. Significantly, the domestic violence case was subsequently dismissed on merits in 2016.

Third, on condonation, the Court found that the respondent’s claim of extended cohabitation was not sufficiently proved. The appellant maintained that he stayed with the respondent for only one day, and the photographs produced by the respondent were unsupported by negatives or other corroborative evidence. More importantly, the Court held that even if some cohabitation had occurred, the respondent neither withdrew the domestic violence complaint nor ceased pursuing it, and the case ultimately came to be dismissed on merits. In such circumstances, the plea of condonation could not be sustained.

The Court also recorded the testimony of the parties’ children, who appeared via video conferencing and stated that they had been residing with their father continuously since 2015, and that the respondent had neither lived with them nor taken care of them. The Court noted that the respondent’s claim of willingness to resume cohabitation was inconsistent with the serious allegations made in the domestic violence complaint and appeared exaggerated.

On this basis, the Court held that the appellant had established cruelty and that the trial court erred in ignoring the respondent’s subsequent conduct—particularly the filing of a domestic violence complaint containing serious allegations after the divorce petition. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, the Family Court’s order was set aside, and the marriage was dissolved.

For the Appellant: Mr. S. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Sathish Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: Muthukumar v. Karpagavalli, C.M.A.(MD) No. 74 of 2021

[Read Judgment]