BINI B. Vs. JAYAN P.R.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law raised in this case is that whether the Kuruma Community of Wayanad District, notified as Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Constitution of India, is entitled to get the benefit of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, when marriage is solemnized according to Hindu customary rites The appellant is the wife and the respondent is her husband, who belong to Kuruma community which is notified as Scheduled Tribe according to Constitution of India, who otherwise profess Hinduism. This appeal is preferred against the order in OP No. 148/2011 of Family Court, Kalpetta, which was filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court allowed the petition and directed the wife to reside in the society of the husband within two months from the date of the order, failing which, the husband is entitled to get the decree enforced in accordance with law.

(2.) The petitioner's case in the Family Court was that he married Dr. Bini as per Hindu customary rites on 19/04/2009 at Chandragiri Auditorium, Kalpetta in the presence of friends and relatives, thereafter, they registered the marriage in the Kalpetta Municipality. After the marriage, both parties resided together in the matrimonial house at Meppadi for three months, after that, they went to their workplace. Appellant is a Doctor by profession, working at Government Hospital, Vythiri and the respondent is an Engineer, KSEB, Peringalkuthu in Thrichur District. While residing so, the husband requested the wife to reside with him, which was declined by her, hence, their relationship became strained. In the circumstances, husband preferred OP No. 148/2011 for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) Appellant filed written objection in the Court below and contended that while residing in the matrimonial house, husband and his parents treated her with cruelty by compelling her to do menial work in their house and to look after the cattle there. When she refused to do menial work, they treated her with cruelty. Since both of them were working at two different places in connection with their job, they could not meet each other. Appellant contended that her husband never treated her with love.