R.KALAISELVI Vs. JOSEPH BABY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant had filed D.O.P.No.796 of 2017 before the Family Court, Coimbatore as against the respondent for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights under Sec. 32 of the Divorce Act 1869. Pending D.O.P.No.796 of 2017, the respondent herein had filed I.A.No.560 of 2018 to reject the petition on the ground that it is a clear abuse of process of law. A counter was filed by the Appellant herein. After hearing both the parties, the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore has allowed I.A.No.560 of 2018 and consequently rejected the D.O.P.No.796 of 2017. As against the said order, the present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant.

(2.) The Appellant herein, in her petition has contended that she got married to the Respondent on 17/12/2013, in the presence of close relatives and friends. The Appellant had further contended that they got married through exchange of rings and the Respondent put on metti in her toes. The Appellant had also contended that she was already married to a person and the said husband had abandoned her and thereafter, she had obtained divorce through Court. The Appellant had further contended that on various occasions she had given a large amount of money to the respondent herein, for conducting business. But, from May 2016 onwards, the respondent is residing away from the Appellant without any sufficient cause and hence, she approached the Court with the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) The Respondent herein, in his affidavit for rejection of the petition, has disputed the marriage and also the money transactions between the Appellant and the Respondent. The Respondent herein contended that he had filed a Civil Suit before the III Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore in O.S.No.882 of 2017, seeking a relief to restrain the Appellant herein from in any way propagating that the Respondent is married to the Appellant. The Respondent herein has further contended that no marriage has taken place between him and the Appellant. It was also contended that even as per the petition, the Respondent is a Christian and the Appellant is a Hindu. The marriage has not been solemnized either as per the Hindu customs or under the Christian Marriage Act. The marriage being an inter-religious one, has not been solemnized even under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Respondent further contended that the Appellant has not disclosed even the name of her previous husband in the legal notice dtd. 8/7/2016. But, in the reply notice sent by the Appellant, the Appellant has named her husband as H.Raghu. The Respondent further contended that one R.Rajasekaran has initiated proceedings under Sec.