JEGADEESWARI Vs. D. IYYAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms. Jegadeeswari, D/o Thulasingam has filed these two civil miscellaneous appeals, one appeal against the order passed in O.P.No.3502 of 2014 granting restitution of conjugal rights in favour of Mr.D.Iyyappan, the respondent herein and another appeal against the order passed in O.P.No.4529 of 2013 refusing the prayer of the appellant to dissolve the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 27/7/2011 at Vaitheeswaran temple which was registered on 1/8/2011 at the Registrar Office, Royapuram, Chennai on the ground of both mental and physical cruelty by the respondent against the appellant. Therefore, both the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Mr.D.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that when the appellant was pursuing her final year B.C.A., course in the Prof.Dhanapalan College, she used to board the college bus near Sadasivam Nagar bus stand at Madipakkam and invariably the respondent was accosting her way to the said college bus stop and while she used to return back from the college also, the respondent was making all sorts of attempts to woo and solicit her. But the appellant was avoiding all the attempts of the respondent and also warned him on several occasions to keep away from her. While so, on 21/7/2011, when the respondent tried to accost the appellant at the above said bus stand, fortunately the relatives of the appellant caught hold of the respondent and warned him with a specific request not to chase her any more. In spite of the said warning, the respondent was mindless to the consequences that their lives would be put to risk and danger. At about 7.15 AM on 25/7/2011, when the appellant was waiting for her college bus in the bus stand, the respondent, criminally intimidating the appellant that she would be done away with if she fails to cooperate with him, forced her to accompany him to Sirkazhi near Mayavaram. It was further alleged that on 27/7/2011, the respondent also, taking a blade, attempted to cut his right arm stating that he would commit suicide unless the appellant accompanied him to Sirkazhi. When the appellant succumbed to the pressure on the fear that the respondent would be spoiling the goodwill and reputation of her family and also putting her parents at the risk of life threat, accompanied him. Taking advantage of the same, the respondent has created a false marriage being conducted at Vaitheeswaran temple. However, with great difficulty, the appellant escaped from the clutches of the respondent. In the meanwhile, the appellant's father lodged a complaint before the S-7, Madipakkam Police Station and the case was also taken as 'girl missing' in Crime No. 1090 of 2011. Subsequently, on the appearance of the appellant before the said police station, the case was altered into one under Sec. 366 IPC. After recording her statement, she was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Alandur and thereafter, recording her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C, the respondent was arrested on 2/8/2011 and remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, he was also released on bail. Although the respondent was charge sheeted by the S-7 Madipakkam Police, finally, the Mahila Court, Chengalpattu vide the judgment dtd. 29/6/2015 passed in S.C.No.89 of 2012, acquitted him of the above mentioned charge. A reading of the findings and conclusions reached by the Mahila Court, Chengalpattu in S.C.No.89 of 2012 would clearly speak about the case of harassment, intimidation and blackmail administered by the respondent against the appellant, who was pursuing her college studies. When the prime life of the appellant was put to irreparable loss and consequently her family was also put to face humiliation in the public domain, the respondent has wrongly filed the O.P.No.3502 of 2014 under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking an order for restitution of conjugal rights. When it was opposed tooth and nail stating that without any willingness or consent and when the marriage was not at all solemnized in the manner known to law, as it was concocted and after thought surrounded by mysteries and suspicions, the learned II Additional Principal Judge, Chennai has erroneously allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, however, when the appellant also filed the O.P.No.4529 of 2013 seeking an order for dissolution of the so-called marriage said to have been solemnized on 27/7/2011 at Vaitheeswaran temple, that was also allegedly registered on 1/8/2011 at the Registrar's office, Royapuram, Chennai as per the Hindu rites and customs, the learned II Additional Principal Judge, Chennai has wrongly dismissed the said petition, by the common order dtd. 30/1/2020. Now, in spite of the above order, the appellant is not living with the respondent, for the reason that there was no such marriage solemnized as alleged by the respondent. Therefore, when there is no semblance of marriage taken place between the appellant and the respondent on 27/7/2011 and the respondent also has not even substantiated his allegation before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai that the marriage was solemnized in the manner known to law and that the conduct of the parties are writ large and vividly that they are not living together from the date of marriage by leading a normal life, it goes without saying that the allegation with which the respondent filed the petition under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, is without any merit. But this has been overlooked by the II Additional Family Court, Chennai. Therefore, the impugned fair and decretal order passed by the II Additional Family Court, Chennai is liable to be set aside by allowing the civil miscellaneous appeals, he pleaded.

(3.) Mr.G.Magesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that no marriage has taken place between the appellant and the respondent on 27/7/2011 is unacceptable, inasmuch as both the appellant and the respondent have solemnized their marriage at Vaitheeswaran temple as per the Hindu rites and customs and thereafter, they have also registered the same in the Registrar's office at Parrys, Chennai and that subsequently, on the intervention of the family members of the appellant, she has deserted the respondent and gone back to her parental home. Subsequently, the appellant's family members, opposing the marriage, have wrongly convinced her to part with the contact of the respondent. In the meanwhile, the respondent has been put to incarceration in view of the registration of the case in Crime No. 1090 of 2011 by the S-7, Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai. Finally when the matters were taken up by the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, a compromise formula was worked out, thereby the appellant's family offered a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00. But this was not accepted by the respondent. However, after the trial commenced, the respondent sought for some more reasonable amount. As the said reasonable compromise proposal was not accepted by the appellant, the II Additional Family Court, Chennai has passed a reasoned order. Therefore, the appeals filed by the appellant challenging the impugned fair and decretal order deserve to be dismissed, he pleaded.