Father can’t give evidence for daughter’s divorce, says court

Justice S Vaidyanathan observed so on citing Section 19 (iiia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that the matter must be heard in a Court where the wife is residing on the date of presentation of the petition. “The object of the legislation is very clear that the matter can be transferred to the place, where the wife resides and not to the place where her father resides and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed, as no genuine ground is made out for transfer of the case,” the judge said.

A matrimonial dispute over the wife being on medication for Schizophrenia ahead of the marriage was pending before the Family court in Chennai. However, during the hearing of transfer petition moved by the wife the court on accounting for the husband’s apprehension that the tablet Sizdone, being consumed by his wife will stand in the way of her matrimonial life (as the fetus got aborted once), the court on the wife’s consent before her parents referred the couple to the Schizophrenia Research Foundation (SCARF), Chennai for examination. SCARF on examination submitted a report on February 24 that the wife is a schizophrenic, suffering from serious mental illness. Following this, the petitioner’s father had sent a letter to the registry stating that while respondent (husband) was heard, the court had failed to hear the petitioner.

Taking strong exception to this, Justice Viadyanathan on holding that the contents of the letter are baseless and though such false statement is offensive, entitling this Court to initiate criminal contempt against the father of the petitioner, this Court at this stage does not want to do so, taking into account of his age.

“It is no doubt true that it is his primary duty to safeguard the interest of his daughter and at the same time, it should always be remembered that truth alone triumphs and a man at the age of 72 should be a role model to youngsters,” the judge added.

Based on this, Justice Vaidyanathan directed the III Additional Family Court Judge to bring the issue to a logical end within one year on considering SCARF’s report.