AMMINI Vs. KUTTAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This M.F.A. is preferred against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Parur in O.P. (HMA) 30/81 which was a petition filed by the respondent herein under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

(2.) The appellant and the respondent are Hindus belonging to Paraya (Harijan) community. The respondent married the appellant on 7-9-1975 according to the custom and usage in the community at Advaidasramam, Alwaye. After the marriage they lived together in the respondent's house as husband and wife. While so, in September 1977 the appellant went to her parent's house for delivery and the appellant delivered a still born child on 26-11-1979. According to the respondent on 29th day of delivery the respondent along with his parents went to the appellant's house for taking her back but she did not go with the respondent and thereafter also many attempts were made by him to take the wife to his house, but she was refusing to go and stay with him. Thereupon be sent two registered letters dated 1-4-1980 and 8-4-1980 calling upon the father of the appellant to send the appellant to him. Finding that it did not yield any result, the respondent again caused to seed a lawyer's notice dated 8-6-81 calling upon her to go and reside with him within 15 days. Though notice was received by the appellant on 5-6-1981 she did not accede to the demand made by the respondent. On the basis of these facts the respondent alleged that the appellant was denying conjugal rights to him and therefore he was suffering physically and mentally. According to him it was in the above circumstances, the above application was filed seeking for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) The application was resisted by the appellant. According to her there was no bona fides for filing the petition and the only purpose for which application was filed was to avoid maintenance being awarded to her on the application filed by her before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate's Court, Perumbavoor for maintenance. She further stated that a still born baby was born on 26-11-1979 and after that for a pretty long period, she was suffering physically and mentally and so on the 28th day she did not go to the respondent's house. She was ready and willing to go to the petitioner's house and live there after regaining physical and mental health, but the appellant was not prepared to take her. The respondent was also making threats and casting aspersion on her character. Many letters were written by the respondent demanding divorce. In unequivocal terms, he expressed himself that he did not want to continue the marital relationship. He also called her as a prostitute and therefore the respondent was guilty of cruelty. It was also alleged that he used to manhandle the appellant while they were living together. She also alleged that the respondent had married another lady and he was not looking after her, after she went to her parent's house for delivery. The allegation that the respondent made attempts to take the appellant to his house was also denied by her. She also alleged that the appellant had taken gold ornaments and that she apprehended danger to her life in case the went and lived with him.