Family Law

T. Srinivasan v. T. Varalakshmi

I (1991) DMC 20 (Mad.)

Facts

T. Srinivasan and T. Varalakshmi married on 31 January 1975.
They lived together only for a few days.
The wife alleged that the husband criticised the gifts and jewellery received from her parents and demanded more presents.
On 13 February 1975, she was sent away from the matrimonial home.
The husband later issued a notice alleging that she had voluntarily withdrawn from his society.
The wife immediately replied that:
she had not deserted him;
she remained willing to live with him; and
it was the husband who had refused to keep her without further gifts.
The husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
Since the wife consistently stated that she was willing to return, a restitution decree was passed on 21 February 1977.
Soon afterwards, the wife sent a notice requesting the husband to send female relatives to bring her back.
She also personally attempted to return to his house but was denied entry by the husband and his mother.
She later filed a suit for separate maintenance.
The husband then sought divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) HMA because there had been no restitution for the statutory period.

Whether the husband could obtain divorce based on non-resumption after the restitution decree.
Whether his conduct amounted to taking advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1)(a).

Section 13(1A)(ii) allows either spouse to seek divorce where there has been no restitution for the prescribed period.
However, the provision remains subject to Section 23(1)(a).
Mere non-compliance with a restitution decree is ordinarily not enough to constitute a statutory “wrong.”
Relief may nevertheless be refused where the petitioner commits fresh and positive misconduct that deliberately prevents restitution.
The wrong must be sufficiently serious to justify denying the matrimonial relief.

The Court distinguished the case from one involving simple unwillingness to resume cohabitation.
The wife had repeatedly demonstrated her willingness to join the husband:
in her reply notice;
in her written statement;
through a post-decree notice;
through relatives and intermediaries; and
by personally going to his home.
The husband did not merely remain passive.
He deliberately prevented the decree from being implemented.
He refused to respond to her notice, threatened to lock the house and finally denied her entry.
His earlier demand for additional gifts and his later conduct showed that he was responsible for the separation.
The Court concluded that the restitution petition had not been filed for genuine reunion.
It was used as a procedural step to create a future ground for divorce.
The husband could not obtain a restitution decree, obstruct every attempt by the wife to comply with it and then rely on the resulting non-resumption.
This was a positive matrimonial wrong, not merely absence of cohabitation.
The wife was consequently also entitled to separate maintenance because the husband had deserted and neglected her without reasonable cause.

The husband’s divorce petition was dismissed.
His deliberate prevention of restitution amounted to taking advantage of his own wrong.
The decree for separate maintenance in favour of the wife was upheld.
Use this case for: a spouse who obtains an RCR decree only to manufacture a divorce ground, while actively preventing reunion, is barred by Section 23(1)(a).