Case brief

In the case of Candida Justina vs Sunderbabu MANU/TN/1491/2016.

( In the high court of madras), has been set as a precedent and cited
in Martin Sagayanadin vs. Antoinette and Ors. (25.01.2019 -
MADHC) : MANU/TN/0194/2019)

Facts of the case

On 9/06/2008, the appellant, Candida Justina, and the respondent, Sunderbabu, got wedded in
Anrea Church situated in Pondicherry. The marriage was registered before the municipality of
Oulgaret.It was an arranged entanglement. On the first night together, when the husband tried
to consummate their marriage, the wife pleaded and asked him to delay the completion of
marriage and he did so because of humanitarian purposes. After that night, she kept her distance
from the husband and turned ignorant. She was very clear on her blatant disinclination towards
coition. On 11th of the same month, she asked for divorce. In addition to this she made it clear
that she wasn’t interested in this matrimony and that her consent was coerced. Instead, she had
preferred to become a nun and live as a celibate. On 15th , she insisted that the husband should
take to her parent’s house. On the her insistence he took her and she only came after a week.
The appellant continued to show her disinterest towards their married life. This was mentally
and emotionally taxing for the respondent.
On the 30h of the same month, she left the house and asserted that she will not be returning
back. She went to her parent’s house with all her jewellery and clothes The husband tried to
convince her parents to send her back and they told him that they will do so and send her back
withing 15 days.

The appellant returned after 20 days. After sometime, the husband tried to consummate and the
wife threatened to take her life. Later, the appellant’s father came and took her with him.
Despite , repeated attempts by him and also by his sister and husband by visiting her parent’s
home, they abused them and sent them back.

Hereafter, the appellant sent a legal notice asking for mutual divorce on 15th of January 2009
and, after a month almost, she sent back a series of slanderous and untrue assertions and claims.

She claimed that they had consummated the marriage. On the date of the marriage itself the
marriage was consummated by the appellant and the respondent. The husband's mother used
to peep through the window hole while the newly wedded couple were in the bedroom at odd
hours. On the morning of the next morning itself, the respondent 's mother had indecently asked
his son in the appellant 's presence if he was pleased, and also to say the number of times that
night he had consummated with her. The appellant was surprised to hear that kind of interaction
between the mom and her own son.
-She also claimed that respondent’s mother demanded dowry from her. She also said that her
father had retired from his job and despite knowing that, she started harassing them to benefit
more from them financially. She questioned the validity of this appeal of divorce by contending
that instead of taking her back, he has decided on a divorce.

-By this, it can be seen that here, the appellant has shown resistance towards dissolution of
marriage.

On hearing the pleas from both sides, the learned trial judge gave a decision favouring the
husband and decided to grant a divorce to both the parties.

Procedural History
Before the present appeal, the respondent had filed an appeal in the trial court for divorce and
consequently, the court had provided for dissolution of marriage.

Issue
The first issue is whether the appeal of divorce is admissible under the French civil code.
In addition to that, the sub issues are whether,
- There was any consummation of marriage or not.
- If the appellant had been cruel towards the respondent by being ignored towards their
matrimony and consummation of marriage.

Act/Rule

Indian Divorce Act, 1869 - Section 10(1)(vii),

Indian Divorce Act, 1869 - Section 10(1)(x

Application
Through this present appeal to the court, the appellant contends the appeal for divorce is not
valid. She stated that trial court was not correct and the appeal shouldn’t have been
admissible under the Article 242 of the French Code and the territory of Pondicherry is
governed by the principles and provision of the Christian Marriage act,1872 and The
Divorce Act 1869.

Furthermore, She argued that the respondent / husband had failed to show that his case comes
under Section 10(1)(vii) and Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869. The learned judge of
the trial had made no determination as to whether the defendant had knowingly agreed to
conclude the union, and thus the union had not been completed. She contended that the opinion
of the educated trial judge is incorrect

Defending the claims of respondent, she further stated that she hadn’t behaved in a cruel
manner with her husband and had caused no harm which would be recognized as an act of
cruelty.

The court after hearing both the sides stated that French court is , subject to the
enactment of the Pondicherry Law (Extension of Laws) Act 1968 (No. 26 of 1968), as laid
down in Part I of the Schedule and Part II of the Schedule, it has been extended to
Pondicherry, subject to such alteration as may be stated in that Schedule. The Indian
Christian Marriage Act, 1872, is applicable as well. Hence, the Divorce act, is admissible
and applicable in this case.

Applying the section 10 (vii) and (x), dissolution of marriage can be done so if one has willfully
refused consummate the marriage and has treated the petition with such a cruelty to cause
apprehension in the mind of the petitioner, respectively.

The parties had conflicting views in relation to consummation of marriage. The appellant stated
that the marriage has been consummated and the respondent denied this completely.
It is imperative to note that if the appellant was fine with the idea of divorce, she would’ve
filed for restitution of conjugal rights.

Secondly, in response to the snubbing of the claims of acts of cruelty by the appellant, the
court stated that non- consummation of marriage amounts to mental cruelty under
Section 10(1)(vii) & (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869.

Judgment

The High court held that trial court was right in dissolving the marriage and dismissed the
appeal leaving the parties to bear their own costs.