DAVID CHRISTOPHER Vs. DR JAYANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.04.2006 made in O.M.S.No.15 of 2001 allowing the Petition filed by Respondent-wife and dissolving the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent which was solemnised on 11.12.1984.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated case of Respondent-wife is that Appellant and his family migrated from Sri Lanka to India and Appellant joined in Madras Medical College and Respondent was also a student in the same college. Both of them loved each other. Respondent was a Hindu and Appellant was a Christian. Respondent got converted to Christianity and the name of the Respondent has been changed to "Mary Jayanthi" and the marriage was solemnised at Velankanni Church, Besant Nagar, Chennai. After getting over the initial difficulties of love marriage, both Appellant and the Respondent set up a matrimonial house and Respondent started her practice as Doctor in 1986. Out of the wedlock, first daughter Krithi was born on 29.09.1987 and second daughter Shruthi was born on 14.01.1994. In 1993, Appellant began an export business and in the course of his export business, Appellant was detained at Trivandrum for a period of 14 months for allegedly smuggling gold. Appellant agreed to mend his ways and Respondent and her mother took all possible steps to take him out on bail. On 21.04.1996, bail was granted and Appellant returned to Madras.

(3.) ADMITTING the marriage and resisting all other allegations in the Petition, Appellant filed counter-statement contending that Respondent was insisting to join her father's MARC II Clinic and Appellant was not permitting the Respondent to join MARC II Clinic and therefore, Respondent was always quarrelling with the Appellant. It is alleged that in anxiety to go and join in MARC II Clinic, the Respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 26.05.1996. Appellant has alleged that again Respondent voluntarily left for her parents house in January 1997 leaving the children with the Appellant and Appellant took care of the children and admitted them in a Boarding School at Ooty. It is alleged that Appellant visited the children several times whereas the Respondent never visited Ooty to see the children.