LOVELY THOMAS Vs. TOMY ALEXANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Original Petition is filed under S.10 & 18 of the Indian Divorce Act with the following allegations:

(2.) The petitioner and the respondent are Christians and their marriage was solemnised on 15.8.1982 in accordance with the custom of the community. Though initially the petitioner and her parents were not interested in the marriage proposal, the marriage was solemnised due to the insistence of the respondent. At the time of marriage, the respondent was employed in U.A.E. After the marriage, they lived together at the residence of the petitioner for four days. During the first night, the respondent pretended to be ill. She saw him taking medicines from the next day onwards. She was told mat the respondent was suffering from jaundice for which he was taking some Ayurvedic medicines and so she was to keep herself away from him. Thus the marriage could not be consummated. The respondent left for U.A.E. promising that he would secure a job for the petitioner at the earliest so that she could join him. He returned to India after about 1 1/2 years in February, 1984. Then they stayed together for 28 days, but he abstained from having sexual intercourse with the petitioner. When confronted, he told her that he had problem in achieving erection and that he was undergoing treatment for the same. Though the petitioner took initiative to consummate the marriage, it was not possible due to the impotency of the respondent. The respondent then returned to U.A.E. On 17.4.1985, he met with an accident and become totally immobile. He was brought to India in July, 1985 and was admitted in Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum. Thereafter he was removed to St. Philomina's Hospital, Bangalore. Even now he is continuing Ayurvedic treatment.

(3.) While so, the petitioner completed Beautician Course and started a Beauty Parlour at Kaduthuruthy. The respondent used to take all the income received from the Beauty Parlour. With the financial assistance of the petitioner's father, she purchased 7 cents of land with a residential building therein at Thalayolaparambu. The document was registered in the name of the respondent due to his insistence.