ANNATHAI Vs. MURUGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in H.M.O.P. No. 64 of 1992 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi is the appellant. She filed the said petition before the Sub Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence and after holding that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 27-7-1983 according to Hindu Rites and Customs and she gave birth to a child on 13-10-1983, allowed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-husband filed appeal in C.M.A. No. 1 of 95 before the Second Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. The lower appellate Court set aside the order of the trial Court and allowed the appeal, against which the wife has filed the present second appeal before this Court under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 100, C.P.C.

(2.) The case of the appellant is briefly stated hereunder :- Accordingly to her, she is the wife of the respondent herein. Both of them belong to Kulasekaramangalam village, Sankaran Koil Taluk. Prior to their marriage, they lived in the same street. From 1981 to 1983 they loved each other and because of cohabitation she was conceived in the month of Feb. 1983. After prolonged request and after complaint to the police, the marriage was performed between them on 27-7-1983 at Pillayar temple in the presence of Village Headman and others. It is further stated that after the marriage, they lived together for some time in Kulasekaramanaglam, where she gave birth to a male child on 13-10-1983. However, the respondent failed to take care of her and even her child. He also demanded Rs. 10,000/- as well as 10 soeverign of gold as dowry.In such a circumstance, having no other option has filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The same was resisted by the respondent husband by way of filing counter statement wherein he denied the relationship between himself and the wife as well as the marriage which is said to have taken place on 27-7-1983. He denied all the averments made by the petitioner. He also emphatically denied that the child was not born to him and no marriage took place as claimed.

(3.) Before the trial Court, apart from the oral evidence of PW 1, the Village Headman in whose presence the marriage was performed, was examined as PW 2 and the Inspector of Police-one Sakthidasan was examined as PW 3. Village Account Book was marked as Ex.P1 through PW 2. The respondent got himself examined as RW 1 and he also examined one Jones as RW 2 , apart from marking Exs. R 1 to R 8. As stated earlier, though the trial Court accepted the case of the petitioner and passed orders granting relief under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the lower appellate Court dismissed the said petition by allowing the appeal filed by the husband.