SUKUMARAN Vs. RESMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed by the petitioner in OP No.603/2007, who is the respondent in OP No.752/2008.

(2.) Op No.603/2007 was filed by the petitioner/appellant seeking divorce u/s 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The short facts that has arisen in the matter are as under and the parties are described as shown in the OP.

(3.) The petitioner married the 1st respondent on 15/1/2006 as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. He alleges that even from the first day of marriage itself, she was behaving in an improper manner. She stated that she has her menstrual period and cannot sleep with him for 10 days and therefore they slept separately. He noticed that she was taking three or four hours for her bath and when he asked about the same, she stated that she would like to keep her clean very keenly. He also noticed that she was washing her hands and legs several times stating that it was not clean. This process continued during midnight as well. They did not have an attached bathroom. During midnight, she used to go out without any fear to wash her hands and feet. Her entire approach caused fear in the mind of the petitioner. Later it was understood that she was not in a position to do any household works independently. He noticed that she was washing clothes for several hours and felt that it was never clean. After 10 days of marriage, though the petitioner approached her for cohabitation, she stated that, she would like to treat him as a brother and he was not permitted to have any sexual contact with her. Initially he did not inform the matter to any of his family members as he thought that she may change her attitude. During the first week of February 2006, she again had her menstrual period and she again informed that she should sleep separately from him for 10 days. Petitioner therefore informed the matter to the 1st respondent's mother, who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent and guardian of the 1st respondent. 2nd respondent informed him that her attitude may change after some period. Despite his earnest attempts and even after a few months of marriage, she did not permit him to have any sexual contact with her and the marriage was not consummated. Petitioner submits that on account of her attitude, he was unable to concentrate on his work and he was suffering severe mental agony. The 2nd respondent was informed about all these facts who came and took the 1st respondent to the parental house. She was also taken for treatment and the Doctor opined that her illness could be cured if medicines are taken for a continuous period. The first respondent left to her house on 17/3/2006 and during her stay at her parental home, she did not make any enquiry regarding the affairs of the petitioner or his parents. According to him, she is not a person capable of continuing a marital relationship and she was living separately since 17/3/2006. Though the petitioner was willing to take her to a Doctor for treatment, she and her mother were not willing. Certain mediation took place between members of the family and both in fact agreed that a joint petition could be filed to dissolve the marriage. But later, she changed her attitude and stated that she was not willing to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent. It is in the said circumstances, the petitioner had approached the Court seeking divorce on the ground of mental illness of the respondent and cruelty.