V. Srivatsan vs S.R. Gayathri

P.N. Prakash, J

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their name.

2 Gayathri, the respondent herein, got married to Srivatsan, the appellant herein on 29.01.2012 at Coimbatore and thereafter, they went to and settled in the U.S., where, Srivatsan was employed. On account of matrimonial discord, they got estranged and Gayathri returned to her natal home and filed H.M.O.P. No.506 of 2015 before the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore (for brevity "the Family Court") seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. In the divorce petition, she has enumerated the acts of cruelty perpetrated on her by Srivatsan in support of her prayer for divorce. To cite one, she has stated that on 29.12.2014, she was assaulted by Srivatsan and she bled profusely.

3 On receipt of notice in H.M.O.P. No.506 of 2015, Srivatsan filed a petition in C.F.R.No.6340 of 2017 before the Family Court alleging that Gayathri has levelled false allegations in her divorce petition and therefore, action should be taken against her under Section 195 Cr.P.C. read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. for perjury.

4 The Family Court has dismissed the said petition on 09.02.2017, calling into question, the legality and validity of which, Srivatsan is before this Court on appeal invoking Section 341 Cr.P.C.

5 Heard Mr. N. Seshadri, learned counsel for Srivatsan and Ms.Usha Rani, learned counsel for Gayathri.

6 Ms. Usha Rani, learned counsel for Gayathri, brought to the notice of this Court that the main petition in H.M.O.P. No.506 of 2015 that was filed by Gayathri seeking divorce has been allowed by the Family Court on 30.11.2017 and therefore, the present appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.

7 On the contrary, Mr. N. Seshadri, learned counsel for Srivatsan, took this Court through the pleadings and various precedents in support of his submission that the Family Court ought not to have dismissed Srivatsan's petition for perjury.

8 This Court perused the impugned order dated 09.02.2017 passed by the Family Court and does not find any infirmity therein. Even before filing his counter in H.M.O.P. No.506 of 2015, Srivatsan has filed a petition alleging that in the divorce petition filed by Gayathri, she has made certain false averments and therefore, she should be prosecuted for perjury. This clearly shows that Srivatsan had not obtained proper legal counsel.

9 At this juncture, it is apropos to extract the observations made by the Family Judge in paragraph no.6 of the impugned order.

"The learned counsel for the complainant argued in length on two hearings in support of his spiral bound typed set filed along with written arguments on 05.11.2016, which includes the queries uploaded by him online and the answers obtained from legal practitioners and some citations in common to this complaint and the interim maintenance filed by the respondent/wife in IA 294/2016. His entire argument was based upon the plea of the respondent/wife made in her petition in HMOP 506/2015 that husband hit her on 29.12.2014 and the wife was bleeding all over the body and arguing the same to be a false affidavit referring to the photograph said to be taken on 31.12.2014 where the wife is smiling. The learned counsel for the complainant pointing to the photographs argued that it does not reveal any injury or bleeding and those photographs ipso facto prove that the allegations made by the respondent/wife is false to the core, requiring the complaint for perjury to be taken cognizance."

10 A reading of the above portion of the impugned order clearly brings out Srivatsan's cantankerousness in prosecuting a patently not maintainable petition and wasting the precious judicial time of the Family Court, which is already burdened with burgeoning matrimonial cases.

11 During the course of arguments before the Family Court, a spiral bound book containing 11 rulings of the Supreme Court which are not at all germane for the case at hand, has been submitted and arguments predicated thereon. The Family Court has meticulously alluded to each of those judgments and has assigned valid reasons for not following them. Undeterred, Srivatsan has filed the present appeal before this Court and his counsel has reiterated the frivolous arguments, notwithstanding the submission of the learned counsel for Gayathri that in the interregnum, the mother case, viz., H.M.O.P. No.506 of 2015 itself has been allowed and divorce granted.

12 This Court places on record its deep appreciation to Mrs.J.Sridevi, then Additional Family Judge, Coimbatore for the patient manner in which the vexatious petition preferred by Srivatsan has been dealt with.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits with exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/- payable by Srivatsan to Gayathri.