AJITHA Vs. HARSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original Petition No. 1126 of 2012 was filed by the husband seeking for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents and their men from trespassing into the petition schedule property and general damages for the loss suffered. O.P No.1128 of 2012 was filed by the husband seeking to declare the marriage between himself and the respondent null and void, for the reason that it was not consummated due to the heart ailment of the wife, suppressing which factum the consent for marriage was obtained and it was solemnized. O.P No.242 of 2012 was filed by the wife seeking to get back money and gold ornaments given to her at the time of marriage, taken custody of and misappropriated by her husband. M.C No.71 of 2012 was also filed by the wife seeking monthly maintenance from her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. O.P No.1128/2012 and O.P No.1126/2012 filed by the husband were allowed granting orders respectively declaring the marriage as null and void and directing to pay general damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the petition. O.P No.242 of 2012 and M.C No.71 of 2012 filed by the wife respectively seeking for return of gold ornaments and monthly maintenance were dismissed.

(2.) Aggrieved by the orders issued, the wife has preferred the appeals as above. According to Smt. M.R Jayalatha, the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned order relating to O.P No.1128 of 2012 was passed by Family Court, Irinjalakuda without appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective.

(3.) According to her, apart from the oral evidence of RW1 denying consummation of marriage, independent evidence was not adduced in support thereof. According to her, medical practitioners having expertise on the subject had not spoken that the lady is fully incapacitated to conceive, but only about the risk involved in conception and therefore, the Family court ought not to have arrived at a finding that the marriage was not consummated.