SRINIVASAN Vs. PADMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is the husband of the respondent, has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal, challenging the Judgment and Decree in C.M.A.No.34 of 2000 on the file of the learned II Additional District Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri dated 13.02.2002 in confirming the Judgment and Decree in H.M.O.P.No.495 of 1994 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri dated 26.09.2000.

(2.) The brief facts of the appellant / husband are as follows: The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was soleminised on 26.06.1980, as per Hindu Rites and Customs and there was no dispute in their matrimonial life for a period of two years. The respondent's brother had purchased dress materials worth Rs.20,000/- from the appellant and thereafter, he had not repaid the same. On account of which, there was an enmity between the two families and during March, 1993, without the permission of the appellant, the respondent's parents had taken her to their house and at that time, the respondent had taken a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the appellant without his knowledge. Inspite of several request and panchayats made by the appellant, the respondent had not turned back to the matrimonial home, therefore, the appellant had filed A.S.No.18 of 1983 for restitution of conjugal rights. In response, the respondent had contested the said case stating that the appellant had illegal intimacy with one girl from Andhrapradesh and thereafter, she had accepted that she will live with the appellant, hence, on her acceptance, the said prayer in the suit was allowed on 17.08.1984. In consequence, after eight days, viz., in the last week of August, 1984, the respondent had proceeded to her parents house, stating that the appellant had illegal intimacy with another lady and several requests made by the appellant went in vain. Further, the respondent had developed illegal intimacy with one Ravi and hence for all the above reasons, the appellant had prayed to dissolve the marriage held between him and the respondent.

(3.) The case of the respondent are as follows:- The respondent was married to the appellant on 26.06.1980, as per Hindu Rites and Customs and out of the wed lock a male child, viz., Mohankumar was born and they lived happily for a period of two years. The respondent had stated that her brother had not cheated the appellant and no point of time, the appellant was involved in textile business. Further, she denies the statement that she had no illegal intimacy with one Ravi and there was no enmity between their families, as averred by the appellant. The respondent had never taken a sum of Rs.10,000/-, also, there is no panchayat held between the respondent and appellant. The respondent had filed a suit in A.S.No.11 of 1983 seeking a share for her son in the joint family property from the appellant and thereafter only, the appellant had filed a suit in A.S.No.16 of 1983 for restitution of conjugal rights. The said suit was allowed in favour of the appellant on the note written by the respondent and the respondent was directed to live with the appellant, but the appellant had beaten the respondent in the court premises itself and he had not turned up to take her. Thereafter, the respondent and the appellant had not united and due to the illegal intimacy with one girl from Andhrapradesh, the appellant had taken the jewels of the respondent and spent all the money. The appellant had signed a release deed relinquishing his rights and given to his father, thereby the rights of her son in the joint family property got affected. After the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was ordered, it is alleged that the appellant had made attempts to kill the respondent in Sathanur. Therefore, the respondent had prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant.