The Madras High Court Bench here has refused to grant divorce to a couple from Rajapalayam in Virudhunagar district on the basis of letters exchanged between them sharing their love for each other after their marriage in 1996.
Dismissing a second appeal filed by the wife, a doctor by profession, Justice A. Selvam held that she had levelled false allegations of dowry harassment and ill-treatment against her industrialist husband, who proved to be very uxorious.
"If really, both of them had not loved each other and if really both of them had not led a happy marital life, definitely the words mentioned in the letters written by the appellant as well as the respondent would not have emerged," the judge said.
In a letter written in 1999, the husband had stated: “You [wife] are in a new family life married to the one who likes, loves and adores you. From your point of view, you feel that I do not know how to keep you. But I assure that you can live as you like.”
Similarly, the appellant, in letters written to her husband, had apologised for her mistakes and expressed her deep love for him. She thanked him for being a noble husband and promised not to hurt him mentally any more.
"If the respondent had really demanded money from the appellant on various occasions and thereby tortured her? definitely the appellant would not have used the words mentioned in her letters," the judge said.
He also pointed out that the couple’s only girl child was living with her father ever since the appellant left to the United Kingdom to pursue higher studies. Further, the appellant’s parents were accused of being the root cause for the misunderstanding.
"Both of them (appellant and her husband) hail from respectable families. If divorce is granted on the basis of mere allegations made against the husband, there is no second opinion that the future of their female child would be affected," the judge added.
A Sub-Court in Srivilliputtur had initially granted divorce to the couple while allowing a petition filed by the wife in 2002. However, on appeal, the Principal District Court reversed the decree in June 2003 and hence the present second appeal.
