S. ARULKUMAR Vs. N. UMAMAHESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals have been filed by Mr.S.Arulkumar, the husband of the respondent, assailing the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2009 passed by the Family Court, Coimbatore in H.M.O.P. Nos.218 of 2006 and 796 of 2008 granting decree for restitution of conjugal rights filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and dismissing his case for grant of divorce filed under Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Act.

(2.) Mr.K.Sivashanmugam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant husband assailing the impugned judgment, pleaded that after the respondent wife filed H.M.O.P. No.218 of 2006 under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights, the appellant husband has filed H.M.O.P. No.796 of 2008 under Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Act seeking decree for dissolution of marriage that was solemnised between the appellant and the respondent on 14.02.2005 at Border Thottam 24 Manai Telugu Chettiyar Kalyana Mandapam, Palani, as per the Hindu rites and customs in the presence of both families and well wishers. Both the matters were taken up by the Family Court, Coimbatore and while granting decree for restitution of conjugal rights filed under Section 9 of the Act in favour of the respondent wife, the Family Court, Coimbatore dismissed the petition for divorce giving a finding that the appellant husband herein has failed to bring out his case for grant of divorce. Arguing further, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of marriage, the appellant was working as a Mechanical Engineer in SPIC JEL Engineering Construction Limited, Chennai and the respondent wife is a graduate in English Literature. After the marriage, they lived together for 10 days in the matrimonial home and 4 days in the parental home of the respondent wife. However, during the short stay of 10 days in the matrimonial home, the respondent wife started showing her true character of arrogance and disobedience to the appellant and his family members. When the appellant and his family members were subjected to mental cruelty due to insult and ignominy by the respondent wife, the appellant being a dutiful husband, tolerated all these strange behaviours of his wife. After 14th day, when the appellant husband invited the respondent wife to come to matrimonial home, she refused to come with the appellant to Karur and insisted the appellant to have a separate residence de-linking from his family members. Since the appellant being an eldest son of his family, told his wife that it is not possible to have a separate residence, but, again, she insisted upon the appellant to set up a separate house to lead a matrimonial life. Therefore, the appellant husband came to Karur alone and spoke to her over phone and told her to come to matrimonial home. When the appellant sent his relatives to Coimbatore to mediate with the respondent for joint living, she has not shown any interest in living with the appellant and has also removed the thali in the presence of the mediators. Therefore, the attitude of the respondent wife clearly shows that she caused cruelty and deserted her husband which are the grounds for dissolution of marriage.

(3.) Mr.Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent wife, opposing the above arguments pleaded that it is a categorical stand of the appellant husband that within 14 days from the date of marriage, the appellant alone, taking the respondent from the matrimonial home, left her at her parental home in Coimbatore on 27.02.2005. In support of his statement, referring to the petition filed under Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Act, invited our attention to the pleadings made in para vii and stated that it was a simple pleading made by the appellant that the respondent has committed mental cruelty to the appellant and his family members and deserted the appellant during the third week of February 2005. The above pleading of the appellant made in the petition filed for divorce and the evidence adduced before the Court in the chief and cross examination would clearly demonstrate that it was only the appellant husband, for the reasons best known to him, within 14 days, keeping something in his mind, brought the innocent wife to her parental home at Coimbatore and left her with a promise that he would find a better accommodation in Chennai, where he is working. When it is a clear case of the appellant that he is a Mechanical Engineer, working in SPIC JEL Engineering Construction Limited, Chennai, for a handful monthly salary, it is his moral and legal obligation to set up a decent family in Chennai before marriage or atleast after marriage. But the appellant husband, without even taking any care on his wife, after marrying her, dumped her in her parental house and now, he is working at SPIC JEL Engineering Construction Limited, Chennai.