ANITHA SARAH JOSEPH Vs. JOSEPH GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru ('Family Court' for short) in M.C.No.3230/2010, whereby the Family Court allowed the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, filed by the husband-respondent herein, under Section 32 of the Divorce Act, 1869 ('Act' for short).

(2.) Facts in brief are: The appellant and respondent were married on 17.12.2011 at Pune. Pursuant to the marriage, the couple lived at Mumbai and were blessed with two sons, viz. Mst.Titus and Mst.Timothy, who are presently aged about 12 and 10 years, respectively. The appellant prior to the marriage was practicing as a Dentist, the respondent was working for HSBC Bank Limited and presently is working as Vice President of Barcley Bank having its branch at Mumbai. The appellant is presently working as a school teacher. Due to disharmony in the marital life, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home during May 2007 along with her children and now residing with her parents. The husband-respondent herein filed the petition under Section 32 of the Act seeking for restitution of conjugal rights contending that the respondent has left his company without reasonable cause. The said petition was contested by the appellant-wife. The Family Court appreciating the material evidence on record, allowed the petition directing the appellant-wife to join the husband to discharge conjugal rights and duties, along with her children within six months from the date of passing of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-wife is in appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel Sri.Christopher.E., representing Sri.Joshua.H.Samuel, Advocate for the appellant would contend that the Family Court while directing the appellant and her minor children to join the respondent and discharge conjugal rights and duties, overlooked the fact that the appellant and minor children have not lived together with the respondent for nearly nine years, it would be difficult to have a cordial relationship with the respondent with whom the appellant has never had a conducive relationship since the beginning of the marriage; The appellant had reasonable cause to live separately as she was tortured and subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the respondent from the early days of her marriage. It was alleged that the respondent had illicit relationship with other women even prior to the marriage and the same was disclosed to the wife in the early days of the marriage. Subsequently also the respondent had the photographs of the other women saved on his mobile phone and despite repeated requests made by the wife to discard the same, it was not deleted. The couple have attended counseling before the Church authorities at Mumbai. Despite the advice of the Church authorities, the respondent has not made any effort to correct himself.