SORNALAKSHMI Vs. K. G. SIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against Judgment and Decree passed in H.M.O.P.No.231 of 2013, dated 05.05.2015 by the Family Court, Tirunelveli.

(2.) The case of the respondent/husband is that the marriage between the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband was solemnized on 31.08.2011 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, the appellant was working as a Manager in Axis Bank at Tirunelveli. During marriage, the appellant/wife was given jewels and household articles, but the respondent has no personal knowledge. After marriage, the respondent/husband and the appellant/wife had lived together happily for fifteen days at respondent/husband's house. On 15.09.2011, the appellant/wife went to her parent's house to see her mother who was unwell. After ten days, when the respondent/husband went to the appellant's house to bring her back, both the appellant/wife and her parents insisted the respondent to live with them for which the respondent claimed that he cannot leave his aged mother, who was suffering from illness. The appellant/wife without having interest to live with the respondent, came with the respondent. Since the appellant was not interested in the family life, she failed to behave as a dutiful wife and did not show any interest in the matrimonial life. Since she was employed she behaved adamantly with a rigid face. The attitude of the appellant caused mental agony to the respondent. Since the appellant/wife was a Manager in the Bank, the respondent took care of the appellant in all manner and he took up the family responsibility. When the appellant was conceived, the respondent allowed her to stay with her parents and from there, she went to her job. Though the respondent informed about his circumstances that he could not leave his aged and sick mother alone, the appellant/wife insisted the respondent to come and live with her in her parent's house. On 29.12.2011 the appellant/wife gave a complaint against the respondent/husband and his mother before the District Social Welfare Officer, Tirunelveli stating that she was asked to enter the kitchen only after taking bath and she was insisted to take the first month salary after keeping the same in the Pooja room and she was insisted to do the household works. On 06.10.2011, the District Social Welfare Officer, Tirunelveli advised the appellant/wife to live with the respondent, but the appellant/wife wanted to live with the respondent separately. During counseling the appellant/wife told that she was not willing to live with the respondent, which caused mental agony to the respondent. The appellant/wife has also filed M.C.No.4 of 2012 before the Family Court and it was referred before the Lok Adalat. On hearing that the appellant gave birth to a male child, the respondent/husband tried to contact the appellant/wife over phone but the appellant threatened him that she would run away to some place out of his reach, if the respondent comes to see them. Though the respondent was willing to live with the appellant, the appellant refused to live with him. The respondent/husband was permitted to see his child at Salai Kumarasamy Temple at Tirunelveli junction. On 25.10.2012, the respondent went to see his child at the specified place and when he tried to talk with the appellant, the appellant conveyed that she was not interested to talk with the respondent/husband and left the place in a short period. Though the counseling was held for eight times before the Lok Adalat, no settlement was arrived before the Lok Adalat and the petition was remitted to Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli. On 31.05.2013, the appellant not pressed the application and the same was closed. Though the respondent had taken much efforts to live with the appellant, the appellant without any reason was living separately from the respondent. The respondent/husband sent a legal notice for reunion, but the appellant had not taken any steps to come and live with the respondent. Hence the respondent filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

(3.) The appellant/wife denied the allegations made against her in the affidavit. It is specifically stated that in the house of one Mr.Chidambaram, they discussed about the jewels and household articles and it was false to say that they have not demanded jewels and articles. The money and jewels were handed over to the mother-in-law in order to avoid problems. It is not correct as stated by the respondent that the respondent was compelled to live in the house of the mother of the appellant and the appellant is not willing to live in matrimonial home. The respondent and his mother insulted the appellant and her parents pertaining to the "Sridana" articles and the appellant was not even allowed to take bath in hot water during winter season. The respondent/husband demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents. Hence, the appellant/wife has given a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Palayam on 27.02.2014. Further the appellant was treated cruelly. With regard to the jewels, the appellant filed a petition before the Social Welfare Officer. After that both the appellant and the respondent lived together till 2011. Though the birth of child was informed, the respondent/husband never came to see the child. The respondent's mother took much efforts to get them separated. The appellant wants to live with the respondent in a separate residence in order to save her matrimonial life. Hence, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the petition.