1

IN THE FAMILY COURT, KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL

H.M.O.P.No. 177 /2018
Between
M.Easwari Petitioner
And
K.Iyyappan Respondent

Argument notes filed by Advocate C.Perumal for and on behalf of the

respondent
Brief facts of Petitioners case
The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The petitioner and
respondent were married on 05.03.1990 as per Hindu religion and customs and
rites. A son by name Rajeswaran was born in the year 1992 out of their wedlock.
After marriage the respondent appears to be arrogant, temperamental,
misbehaved and cruel. The respondent never bothered to maintain the family
and also showed no love and affection towards the petitioner. The respondent
was also a drunkard and used to assault the petitioner. The cruel nature of the
respondent led her to leave the matrimonial home some ten years ago and now
it made her to file this petition for dissolution of marriage.
Brief facts of Respondents case
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and the birth of
a son out of their wedlock are admitted. The respondent is a humble person.
The respondent never assaulted the petitioner as alleged by her. The petitioners
used go out of her matrimonial home on several occasions without any reasons.
The petitioner was under the influence of her younger brother. The petitioner
never bothered about the respondent or their son’s primary needs comforts and
wellbeing. The petitioner did not even give food to the son and the respondent
on several occasions. The petitioner with the intention to desert the respondent
and the son deliberately left from them for the past ten years. The respondent
 2

tolerated all the cruelties only to protect the matrimonial bond and also to
protect the interest and welfare of the son. The petitioner with the intention to
harass the respondent and their son came with this petition.
Important points to be considered
1. The petitioner is the real perpetrator of all misunderstanding with the
respondent. Having done all the atrocities and cruelties against the
respondent and the son, now the petitioner has come forward before
court seeking divorce in this petition on the ground of desertion and
cruelty without any reasonable cause. It is humbly submitted that the
petitioner on her own accord deserted the respondent and their only son.
If the respondent is such a cruel person or a drunkard as alleged by the
petitioner, she as a mother might not have let her minor son to suffer
under the respondent’s custody some ten years ago. So it clearly shows
that the petitioner only deserted the respondent and their only son.
2. The respondent alone as a mother and father brought up his only son
from the early childhood and he is still under the custody and care of the
respondent. A cruel or a drunkard cannot have raised such a good child
up to this level. The law does not permit any spouse who is the cause for
the separation and cruelty. Here the petitioner is the real perpetrator and
she came with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and
desertion
Sec 23 (1) a of the Hindu marriage Act 1955 says that “In any
proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the Court is
satisfied that-(a) any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the
petitioner except in cases where the relief is sought by him on the ground
specified in sub-clause (a),sub-clause (b) or sub clause (c) of clause (2) of
section 5 is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or
disability for the purpose of such relief”
 3

3. The respondent and his son is always ready and willing to accept the
petitioner, but the petitioner with intent to desert the respondent and
the son wantonly left from the society of the respondent and his son.
4. The respondent never filed any petition for restitution for conjugal rights
is admitted. The respondent being an illiterate and a rustic villager was
not aware of the petition called restitution of conjugal rights.
5. The respondent and his son forgetting all the antecedents invited the
petitioner on several occasions to have marital bonds restored but she did
not or does not care for it.
6. The petitioner filed this petition with ten years old allegations. The Honble
Supreme court in Suman Singh Vs Sanjay Singh, AIR 2017 SC 1316 has held
that a petition seeking divorce on some isolated incidents alleged to have
occurred 8-10 years prior to filing of the date of petition cannot furnish a
subsisting cause of action to seek divorce after 10 years or so occurrence
of such incidents.
7. The respondent relies on the following rulings to support his case
a. AIR 2017 SC 1316
b. 2013 (4) CPSC32(SC)
Hence it is most humbly prayed that this Honble court may be pleased to
dismiss the petition and thus render justice.

Advocate