DR. S. VENUGOPAL Vs. CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petitioner in O.P. (H.M.A.) No. 303 of 1982 before the Sub Court, Trivandrum is the appellant. He is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner. That petition was filed under Sec. 13(1), (ia), (ib) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. The respondent herein, who is hereinafter referred to as the respondent, is the wife of the petitioner. They are Hindus governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. They got married on 23.5.1976 at Nagercoil. After the marriage they were living in the house of the petitioner at Trivandrum. The respondent has a daughter in the marriage whose date of birth is 16.8.1978. Although the petitioner raised the grounds under Sub-section (1) (ia) (cruelty) and Sub-section (I) (iii) (mental disorder) even at the trial stage the petitioner did not pursue the ground under Subsection (I) (iii) of Sec. 13 (mental disorder). In this Court learned counsel for the petitioner pressed only the ground of desertion. So much so it is not necessary for this appeal to state the facts in support of the other grounds originally urged by the petitioner.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the attitude and behaviour of the respondent always caused the petitioner to lose peace of mind and happiness. Even at the time of marriage the petitioner did not receive any money or materials from the respondent or her father. Even an offer made by the father of the respondent to give a car as a present was turned down by the petitioner, since he already had a car. However the respondent's father was propagating false news among the common relations that the petitioner was given huge amount by the respondent's father and that the petitioner was demanding more amounts from him. The respondent was behaving in an insulting manner to the petitioner and his parents. On 20.6.1980 the respondent took all her belongings and left the petitioner's house to her father's house taking the child with her, without petitioner's knowledge or consent. Thus she deserted the petitioner. On that day the petitioner was busy with preparation for leaving for Madras on the next day for obtaining visa for the petitioner's proposed trip to U.S.A. since he had obtained admission in U.S.A. for higher sutides. The petitioner went to Madras on 21.6.1980. However due to the mental strain he suffered on account of the desertion of the respondent he had to cancel his plans for going to U.S.A. Although the petitioner made several attempts through mediators to persuade the respondent to return to him, the respondent refused to return. A registered lawyer's notice was also issued to her. Even then she did not return to him. Accordingly this petition was filed for dissolution of marriage and custody of the child.

(3.) The respondent denied the allegations. According to her, the petitioner began to ill-treat her at the instigation of his parents who were eager to squeeze money from the respondent's father. She denied the allegation that she used to insult the petitioner and his parents. On the false allegation that the respondent did not respect the petitioner's parents and did not open the door for petitioner's father she was taken to her father's house by the petitioner and was left there. At that time the child was in the house of the petitioner. After a few days the respondent's brother took her to the petitioner's house. However, the petitioner wanted the respondent to get an amount of Rs. 80,000.00 from her father. Since the respondent's father refused to pay this amount, the petitioner refused to attend the return marriage of respondent's brother on 16.6.1980. On 19.6.1980 the petitioner took the respondent to Nagercoil and demanded Rs. 80,000.00from the father of the respondent. Since the respondent's father refused to pay the amount the petitioner returned to Trivandrum with respondent. On the next day, viz., on 20.6.1980 the petitioner took the respondent and the child to Nagercoil and left them on the road near the respondent's father's house telling her not to return to Trivandrum without getting the money from her father. Respondent did not leave the petitioner's house without his consent or knowledge. She has no intention to desert the petitioner even temporarily. She has not caused any mental pain to the petitioner. In Jan. 1981 the respondent went with the child to Trivandrum and met the petitioner in the clinic where the petitioner was working. But he refused to take her and the child to his house. Therefore she returned to Nagercoil. Again in Aug., 1981 the respondent and her child came to Trivandrum along with some relation.