Begin typing your search...

    23 years on, couple still locked in legal wrangle over divorce

    A couple who had commenced their divorce process in 1995 after a failed marriage are still fighting it, with the justice system being exploited to the hilt. Even after over two decades, the issue is pending disposal with no result in sight.

    23 years on, couple still locked in legal wrangle over divorce
    X
    Factfile

    Chennai

    As per the case, Paul (name changed), a CSI Christian, married Ruku (name changed), a Hindu, on January 29, 1992, in Sivakasi under ‘Suyamariathai’ (self respect) marriage. But, within four months of marriage the couple separated. Thereafter, the husband moved a divorce plea at the district court in Srivilliputtur in 1995.

    Paul had contended that Ruku refused to consummate the marriage as she was in love with another person. But the court after making some adverse finding that the woman indeed got pregnant and had to go through an abortion besides harassment dismissed the divorce plea on July 2, 1997. Following this, Ruku filed a plea before the family court in Chennai in 2005 seeking Rs 10,000 as maintenance.

    Notwithstanding this, Paul filed a suit before the District Munsif court in Sivakasi seeking declaratory relief that Ruku is not his wife, in 2006. Interestingly, the trial court took the stand that “Legality of marriage cannot be proved by the mere admission of parties. Rites and ceremonies performed alone provide proof of marriage as registration does. When there is no marriage solemnised in accordance with any law applicable to the parties, mere admission will not operate.”

    Based on this, the trial court concluded that the marriage between Paul and Ruku is invalid. This led to Ruku moving an appeal before the Sub-judge, Sivakasi, which yet again entitled Paul with the decree that the marriage is not valid in 2008.

    Aggrieved by this, Ruku moved the Madras High Court. Justice S Rajeswaran, who heard the plea, held that the finding rendered by the district court on July 2, 1997, has become final and the same could not be reopened by filing another suit by differently wording the prayer. He said, “It is very clear that the lower appellate court has lost sight of the prayer sought for by the plaintiff (Paul) and definitely exceeded its jurisdiction to point a new prayer which was not even asked for in the suit.” Also, the judge on noting that the suit has been filed as a counter blast to the maintenance petition filed by the wife, dismissed the suit filed by Paul.

    Advocate R Sudha, vice-president, Madras High Court Advocates Association, said, “There is an urgent need to address delays in the family courts. Though this cannot come at the expense of appropriate decision, in most cases the litigants are themselves to blame where it trickles down to vengeance.” Now, aspects pertaining to maintenance, domestic violence, dowry harassment and bigamy continue to bog the case.

    Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!

    Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!

    Click here for iOS

    Click here for Android

    migrator
    Next Story