TULASAMMA Vs. N SEENAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, whereby M. C. No. 63 of 1994 filed by the appellant-wife seeking a decree for divorce has been dismissed.

(2.) THE parties are Hindus by faith. They got married to each other on 13-7-1987 at Bangalore and started living with the parents of the appellant-wife. The respondent-husband was at that time working as a teacher in a school drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 350/ -. Having stayed with his parents-in-law for about nine months or so, the couple shifted their residence to Gayathrinagar where they lived together till 1992. During this period, he had given up his job and started his own business in the name of J and J Safety Aids and Marketing Services. Differences having arisen between the parties, they have been living separately ever since the year 1992. M. C. No. 63 of 1994 was in the above background filed by the appellant-wife for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and conversion of the respondent-husband to another religion within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (i-a) and (ii) of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955. The petition enumerated the acts of omission and commission of the respondent-husband on the basis whereof the wife sought a decree for dissolution of marriage. It alleged that after getting married to the appellant-wife, the respondent-husband had lost his job in private establishments twice till he set up his own business. He was during the time he stayed in the house of his parents-in-law behaved rudely with the appellant-wife and her relatives. He would not talk to them and would even suspect the petitioner's character. So much so he did not like her talking to her own brother-in-law who too was living in the same house. He would suggest as though she was having an illicit relationship with him and would always quarrel with and abuse her. He would also say that he was being discriminated against the other son-in-law of the house. He would quarrel with the appellant's sister and had even gone to the extent of assaulting her. His arrival home would invariably be late followed by quarrels on flimsy grounds. The conduct of the respondent-husband notwithstanding the appellant's father would give him money towards bus fare and other expenses. He would all the same insist that the appellant-wife and her parents should always be submissive to him. He went to the extent of demanding Rs. 25,000/- over and above the amount that was paid to him at the time of the marriage. This he insisted would help him start his business and buy a vehicle. Since the amount could not be arranged by the parents of the appellants, he nursed a grouse against them. He even expected her parents to get a job for him which they could not arrange. Within about six months of the marriage, he started insisting that his parents-in-law should arrange a separate rented accommodation for him by giving an appropriate advance. Then suddenly one day he asked the appellant-wife to leave her parental house at once, brought two autos and forced her to leave in the same immediately without allowing her to take her things to a rented house in Gayathrinagar. He did not allow her to visit her parents' house even once in a while. He threatened that if she or her parents or brothers visit each other, he would break their legs. He prevented her from attending her brother's and sister's marriages and did not attend the same himself. After the brother of the petitioner got married, he started abusing the appellant-wife by saying that she was not good looking whereas the wife of the appellant's brother was good looking. He had a grouse even regarding the manner in which his marriage was celebrated in contrast with the marriage of her brother which was according to him organised on a grand scale with many gifts given to him by his father-in-law. He alleged that since it was difficult for the parents of the appellant to get her married, she had been thrust upon him. He added insult to injury by abusing her and saying that since she did not conceive, she was not a woman. He would say that as she was not good looking, he does not get sexual satisfaction from her and would compare her with a prostitute and find fault with her and would harass her and insist on sexual satisfaction at odd hours. If she protested against this attitude, he would say that he would get another woman for sexual enjoyment. When she joined B. Ed. College as a student, he would enquire about her male classmates and would suspect her having established illicit relationship with them. If she was returning late from her classes, he would make false accusations and scold her. He would indulge in physical violence on flimsy grounds and even when she was laid down with typhoid, he would command her to do household work and satisfy his sexual needs. Since the petitioner had not conceived, he started forcing her to let him bring another wife. This kind of a treatment forced her to leave the house many times, but he would bring her back to re-start the same treatment over again. While she was working in a school as a teacher, the respondent-husband would come near the school and make enquiries about her moral conduct and to keep a watch on her. On 17-7-1993, when she went back to the respondent's house after recovering from her illness, the respondent did not allow her to enter the house forcing her to go back to her parents' house. Some time later, he sent his mother and sister's husband to the appellant's house for signing some divorce papers. This was followed by a legal notice to which she sent a proper reply. In October 1993, she learnt that the respondent was marrying another woman named Ms. Rukmini, D/o. Ramakka, a resident of no. 47, Vinayakanagar, II Cross, Banashankari I Stage, Bangalore. She immediately lodged a complaint with the Subramanyanagar Police Station. The respondent was called to the Police Station where he made a statement that he would not take a second wife. Despite that however he is living with Ms. Rukmini, respondent 2 in adultery. Ms. Rukmini has even conceived from the respondent. He has converted to Christianity and bought photographs of Jesus Christ to his house and forced the petitioner also to visit the Church once or twice. He would pray as a christian and upon enquiries was told that the respondent had converted to Christianity subsequent to her marriage without her knowledge and consent.

(3.) THE objections filed on behalf of the respondent-husband disputed the allegations made against him. He denied that he was behaving rudely with the appellant or suspecting her fidelity. He set up a separate establishment because according to him his parents-in-law did not have either the will or the capacity to secure his future. He alleged that the wife used to abuse and quarrel with him and that on occasions he had to go without food. The allegation that he demanded and received money from his father-in-law was denied by the respondent. It was also denied that any gold chain or other items were presented to him. The allegation that the appellant-wife was not allowed to take her belongings to the new rented house at Gayathrinagar was also denied. It was also denied that the appellant was prevented from visiting her parents' house or that her relatives were threatened with injury when they came to visit her. Allegations of physical and mental abuse were also denied like those suggesting sexual harassment and perversion. It was also denied that the respondent suspected the appellant's fidelity or that he was making enquiries from the school regarding her conduct and character. The allegation that the respondent had married Ms. Rukmini or was living with her in adultery was also denied. The objections went on to state that although the father of the appellant-wife had offered a job to the respondent in Titan Company as an Area Sales Executive, the same was not accepted by the respondent as he was not interested in accepting any favour from either the appellant-wife or her family members. It was also alleged that the respondent had suggested to the parents of the appellant that the marriage could be postponed for a period of one year, but the appellant's family members compelled the respondent to marry her since the appellant was in love with somebody and was likely to elope with him. It was also alleged that since the appellant was neither good looking nor physically healthy, the chances of her getting married were very bleak. The objections also alleged that the respondent had consented to get married to the appellant on account of the pressure that was brought upon him by the parents of the appellant. It was alleged that the parents of the appellant had misrepresented to the respondent that his parents had also consented to the alliance. It was further alleged that some blank papers were got signed from the respondent by fraudulent means and that once the parents of the respondent had come to know about the marriage, they rushed to Bangalore to protest against the same. After the marriage, the appellant had refused to go to the respondent's native place and her parents refused to send the petitioner-wife to matrimonial home. This forced the respondent to stay with the appellant in her parents' house. The respondent-husband further alleged that the petitioner was sleeping in a different room along with her sister, her brother-in-law and their kids. This was not liked by the respondent, but the appellant-wife refused to comply with the legitimate demand of the respondent. The objections alleged that while the husband was staying with the petitioner-wife and her parents, he was not being looked after or treated properly. He was made to work like a domestic servant to fetch water and vegetables. It was also alleged that the appellant-wife was not at all interested in leading a married life outside her parents' house, she would therefore unnecessarily create problems on flimsy grounds and go back to her parents' house. To save the marriage, a Panchayat was also organised but nothing really worked out. It was only once or twice in a month that she would allow him to have sexual intercourse with her and that too unwillingly. She did not allow the respondent to have sex regularly and would never co-operate with him. The objections in the above background prayed for dismissal of the petition.