G.VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. G.AMUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant and respondent are the husband and wife. Appellant filed a petition under Sec. 13(l)(i)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage solemnised with the respondent on 22/8/2005 in HMOP No.785 of 2008. Respondent filed HMOPNo.898 of 2008 under sec. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the petitions were tried jointly before the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore. Learned Family Court Judge dismissed the petition filed for divorce and allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Against the order dismissing divorce petition and the order allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the husband filed both these appeals.

(2.) The case of appellant, from the petition filed for divorce and the counter filed in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, in brief, is as follows:- The marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnised on 22/8/2005 at Coimbatore. After the marriage, they started living at the residence of the appellant at Sornambika Lay out, Ram Nagar. Some months after the marriage, respondent started to pick up quarrel with the appellant without any rhyme or reason. Respondent studied M.Com. Proud of her educational qualification, she used to tell the appellant that she possessed two degrees, she is beautiful and accepted to marry him only because of his family owning a house. During December 2005, the respondent became pregnant. Even during that period, she quarrelled and fought with appellant without any reason. One day, after fighting with appellant, she started to her mother's house. Appellant followed her and advised her not to go. Without heeding to his advice, she jumped out of the bus and the fetus got aborted. She always used to fight with appellant insisting on separate residence. One day in March 2006, when the appellant was sleeping deeply, the respondent with an intention to kill him, strangulated him and scolded him in filthy language. She removed her thali and threw it on the appellant and told him to tie the thali to his mother. After a week, she left to her mother's house. On 16/3/2006, she gave a false complaint against the appellant and his parents at Gandhipuram All Women Police Station. The respondent gave complaint against the appellant in Priccol Company Management against him and insulted him by shouting in front of the main gate, which caused great mental agony and tension and torture to the appellant. Valaikappu function was celebrated during 7th month of pregnancy. A male child was born on 24/10/2006. Only for the sake of information, appellant was informed through phone. Five months after the birth of their son, tonsuring naming ceremony was held at Maruthamalai, but no invitation was extended to appellant and his family members. During March 2007, respondent gave a letter admitting her mistakes and expressing her willingness to live with appellant. When the marriage of respondent's brother was celebrated, no invitation was extended to the appellant and his parents. On 11/6/2007, appellant gave notice to the respondent with an intention to restore the marital life. He also filed HMOP No.570 of 2007 for restitution of conjugal rights. When this case was pending, respondent gave false complaints against appellant and his family members to various authorities and also defamed them among family circle. Therefore, appellant withdrew HMOP No.570 of 2007 and filed this petition. Respondent has failed to do the marital obligations. She wanted to lead luxurious life. Inspite of taking steps for living with her, she always neglected the appellant and stayed at her parents house. Therefore, the petition for divorce.

(3.) The case of respondent, as seen from the counter filed in divorce petition and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, in brief, is as follows:- The marriage and subsequent living in the appellant's house are admitted. At the time of marriage, respondent was given 20 sovereigns of gold jewels, household utensils as a gift. After that, appellant demanded the respondent to get Rs.50,000.00 and 5 sovereigns of gold jewels from her parents and brother to meet the expenses relating to the conduct of partition case pending before the High Court of Madras. Appellant's mother threatened the respondent that if she failed to bring cash and jewels, her son would not live with her. She was abused and physically beaten. The harassment continued even during the pregnancy of respondent. As a result, she suffered abortion in 2005. Her mother and brother admitted her at Kuppusamy Naidu Hospital and when she was taking treatment in the hospital, neither appellant nor his family members visited her. Respondent voluntarily went to her husband's house for living with him. Again appellant's parents threatened her to bring 5 sovereigns of gold jewels or else they would conduct second marriage to the appellant. On 11/3/2006, appellant's parents cut her thali and drove her out of home. Respondent gave a police complaint. After enquiry, the police Inspector advised the appellant and respondent to start independent living and admonished appellant's parents. However, appellant has not taken any steps for finding a house to start separate living. Respondent's brother found a house at Periyanayakkanpalayam. Appellant's parents threatened the appellant that if he went to live separately with the respondent, they would commit suicide and that drove the appellant to attempt to commit suicide. Respondent and her brother alone saved him. Respondent was doing all the duties of dutiful wife. Though appellant and his parents were properly invited for 'valaikappu' function, theydid not attend 'valaikappu' function. They did not even come to see the new born child. When the respondent went to appellant's house on 17/2/2007, she was not permitted to enter the house and driven away by the appellant and his mother. They prepared agreement and compelled the respondent to sign in that agreement. When respondent refused to sign the agreement, appellant and his friends fought with the respondent. When respondent gave complaint about his harassment, appellant filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights. When respondent expressed her willingness to live with him, he not pressed the petition. Therefore, she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.