SOOSANNAMMA KURIEN Vs. VARGHESE ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant is the appellant. The suit is for restitution of conjugal rights. The first defendant is the wife of the plaintiff. The second defendant is the father, and the third defendant the mother, of the first defendant. Parties are Christians. Plaintiff belongs to the Jacobite Church while the first defendant is a member of the Church of South India (C.S.I.) Their marriage took place on 3.10.1124. After the marriage they lived as husband and wife till Makaram 1125. It is alleged in the plaint that at the instigation of defendants 2 and 3 the first defendant went away from the house of the plaintiff in Makaram 1125 and lived with them. According to the plaintiff, there was no justifiable reason for the first defendant to leave his house. Attempts made by the plaintiff to bring her back to his house did not succeed. He, therefore, instituted the suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

(2.) Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit. The first defendant contended as follows:- She admitted the marriage between the plaintiff and herself and the fact that she lived with the plaintiff till Makaram 1125. During the period of her stay with the plaintiff the latter subjected her to severe physical torture and mental agony. The plaintiff did not treat her as his wife. He was after other women and even gave her clothes to those women, an insult which she could not bear. He also expressed his desire to her that he wanted to marry another woman. He imputed unchastity to her. In the circumstances, it was impossible for her to live with him. Further, he sent a registered letter to her on 6.11.1950 demanding judicial separation from her. He also cut off her photo from a group photo of herself and the plaintiff and sent it to her and demanded her to send his photo similarly cut off from the group photo she was having with her. As she was forced to leave the plaintiff she demanded of him the return of her streedhanam amount which he refused to return. She, therefore, instituted O.S. No. 123 of 1951 of the Thiruvella Munsiffs Court for the streedhanam amount due to her. She also attached before judgment immovable properties belonging to the plaintiff. It was as a counter blast to that suit that the plaintiff instituted the present suit for restitution of conjugal rights. There is no sincerity in the plaintiffs assertion that he wanted to have married life with the first defendant; and there is no bona fides in the suit. The second defendant contended that he was an unnecessary party to the suit. He denied the allegation in the plaint that it was on account of the instigation of himself and the third defendant that the first defendant left the house of the plaintiff. It was because the plaintiff deserted the first defendant that he allowed her to stay with himself and the third defendant and maintained her.

(3.) The plaintiff filed a replication controverting the contentions of the defendants and reiterating the allegations in the plaint. He denied the averment in the written statement of the first defendant that he wanted to marry another woman. He re-asserted his desire to continue his married life with the first defendant. He refuted the contention that he subjected her to physical torture and mental agony. He also denied the averment that he imputed unchastity to her. He admitted having sent a letter to her but denied her contention that he demanded in that letter judicial separation from her. The letter was misinterpreted by her. In the letter he only gave vent to his feelings of distress and agony on account of the conduct of the first defendant. It is true that he cut her photo from the group photo and sent to her and asked her to send his photo to him. But that was only an expression of his deep disappointment and was not intended as an expression of his desire to separate himself from her. He denied the averment that he gave her clothes to other women. It was also stated in the replication that the first defendant instituted O.S. No. 123 of 1951 at the instigation of defendants 2 and 3 and not of her free will.