N EZHUMALAI Vs. BABY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, Chennai, dated 27.10.1999, made in F.C.O.P. No.756 of 1994, dismissing the petition for divorce filed by the husband, this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) Before the Family Court, the petitioner/husband has stated that the petitioner and the respondent got married on 27.10.1991 at Jayamangalam Kalyana Mandapam, Madras-13. After the marriage, they lived together in the petitioner's house for six months. Thereafter, since the respondent wanted to set up a separate house apart from the parents, the petitioner refused. Therefore, the respondent went to her parents' house taking all the gold jewels. Subsequently, a panchayat was arranged on 16.5.1992. Even then, the respondent refused to live with the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent gave a police complaint before the Legal Aid Officers and the petitioner was enquired by the Legal Aid Officers. Again, the respondent gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Dowry Cell, Madras-1, on 1.5.1994. The petitioner was summoned and even after conciliation, the respondent refused to live with the petitioner. The petitioner has suffered mental agony and torture for the past two years. Hence, this petition has been filed for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1), (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(3.) A counter was filed by the respondent in which it is stated as follows: At the time of marriage, the parents' of the respondent gave 8 sovereigns of gold jewels and household articles. Entire marriage expenses were born by the respondent's parents. After the marriage, they lived together in the petitioner's house along with his family. During that period, the petitioner used to ask the respondent to get money from her parents. The averments made in the petition are all false. The respondent never asked the petitioner for separate residence. In the month of May 1992, the petitioner picked up a quarrel with the respondent and driven out of the house. After the intervention of panchayatdars, she was taken back and lived with the petitioner for another year.