P. SIVAKUMAR Vs. S. UMA MUTHUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been filed, to set aside the judgement and decree, dtd. 25/7/2017, made in HMCMA.No.25 of 2015, by the IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgement and decree, dtd. 20/4/2015, made in HMOP.No.96 of 2014, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Sankarankoil.

(2.) The case of the Appellant as set out in the HMOP is that the Appellant is a B.Tech Degree Holder and he got employed at Bahrain. The marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent took place on 24/3/2008 at Karaikudi. They never seen each other before the marriage and on seeing the photo through internet only, the marriage was arranged. To his shock and surprise, the attitude of the Respondent during the nuptial night was confusing him and she was behaving abnormally and the attempts of the Appellant to have the marriage consummated failed. Even after three days of the marriage, her conduct did not change. It was informed by her parents that she would be alright in a while. The marriage was registered on 10/4/2008. She was taken to Vadamalayam Hospital, Madurai on 7/5/2008 by the Appellant for treating her and the said Hospital required the earlier history of the Respondent, but it was not given by her parents. She lived with him only for 50 days. There was no cohabitation between them. In the 2nd week of May, 2008, she was taken by her parents from the matrimonial house and thereafter, she never contacted the Appellant and she did not bother to take care of him. She was not in a sound state of mind and not fit to lead the normal marital life. The Respondent had made a complaint before the concerned Police against the parents of the Appellant and the elder brother of the Appellant on 30/3/2012, without false allegations. In such circumstances, the HMOP has been filed, seeking for a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

(3.) The case of the Respondent, as set out in the counter filed in the HMOP isthat the parties are related to each other. The marriage and the registration of the same are admitted. The facts of non-consummation of marriage and the treatment given to her are denied. The husband and wife were taking through phone even for four months prior to marriage. She was doing her duties in the matrimonial house without fail. A sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 and 15 sovereigns of gold jewels and other household articles, as Sridhana, were given at the time of marriage. A sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 was spent towards the marriage expenses. She was working as a Steno in the Tamil Nadu State Government and hence, it cannot be stated that she was in a unsound state of mind. The Appellant had stated that only on compulsion, he had agreed to marry. He harassed her mentally by stating that only for getting the money, he had married her. Only for two days, they had physical relationship and thereafter, it was the Appellant, who avoided her and caused cruelty to her by saying one reason or the other and by demanding a dowry of Rs.5,00,000.00. While so, without informing her, the Appellant had gone somewhere and he was talking to his parents through phone only and he was telling that he was at Mumbai or Chennai. Thereafter, she came to know that actually, Appellant had gone abroad without informing her and thus, it is the Appellant, who deserted her. There was a Panchayat held by the elders and after the Panchayat only, which ended in vein, she came to her parents' house. In 2010, again she went to the matrimonial house, but, the Appellant was not there and the parents of the Appellant were giving evasive answers. Since she did not know about the whereabouts of the Appellant, she wasconstrained to file the HCP and to give the complaint. In such circumstances, the HMOP is liable to be dismissed.