S.K. MEGALAI Vs. R. MUTHURAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent/wife before the Family Court, Madurai is the appellant before us. The husband filed a petition H.M.O.P. No.71 of 1997 under Sec. 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree and judgment to dissolve the marriage between the parties held on 11.11.1991. The Family Court, by a judgment dated 24.11.2000, granted the decree and directed the dissolution of the marriage. The appeal is against this judgment and decree.

(2.) The appellant/wife was working as an Officer in the Indian Bank at Chennai and the respondent/husband was working as Assistant Chief Controller of Imports and Exports in the Central Government Commerce Department at the time of marriage. The marriage was an arranged marriage held according to the Hindu religious rites and customs on 11.1 1.1991. Misunderstanding arose even at the time of reception of the marriage and both parties have their own versions about it. However, they started living together at Madurai, the wife having got transferred to Madurai. A female child was born to them in October, 1992. On the basis of a stated incident in the petition that the wife did not obey the direction of the husband to take the milk tumbler outside and the refusal and threatening by the wife on the alleged statements that she will give a police complaint, she is said to have left the matrimonial house at Madurai along with the child to her parents' house at Uthamapalayam. The petitioner went to Uthamapalayam to take the baby back with him, but the same was resisted to, resulting in the intervention of the police and ultimately, the child was restored to the wife. Thereafter, the problem between the parties was settled and compromised on 22.1.1995. The wife conceived for the second time and she was taken for the second delivery on 10.10.1996, after taking scanning and undergoing medical tests at Madurai. The second child was born on 22.11.1996. Contending that the husband was not informed of the birth of the second child and that his friends were not permitted to see the child and that the wife had refused to carry out the marital obligations of conjugal rights, a registered notice was issued by the husband through his advocate on 29.1.1997, followed by the petition under Sec. 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of mental cruelty.

(3.) The wife opposed the petition, inter alia, contending that there is no cause of action for the petition and that the same was made because of the hatred of the husband's family towards the birth of two female children and with an intention to have a second marriage. According to the written statement, the husband is acting at the instance of his mother and that he had developed hatred towards the wife only because of the constant instigation by the mother -in -law. She further says that the mother -in -law had influenced and interfered even with the official conduct of the husband, resulting in criminal complaints against him. The minor differences were magnified and the allegations that she was not happy with the marriage and that she was having the habit of leaving to her parents' house without informing the husband and that the first child was named without informing him were all denied. On the contrary, she points out that it is her, who was at the receiving end because of her failure to bring sufficient dowry and for giving birth to a female child. In any event, after the admitted compromise on 22.1.1995, the husband has no cause of action to make any complaint against her whatsoever. She refused the allegation that the husband was not informed of the birth of the second child. On the contrary, it is her complaint that the husband's family came to know that the second child is going to be a female child after the scanning was done, over which they were very much upset and therefore, inspite of her informing them about the birth of the second child, they did not come and see the child. They have invented reasons to immediately give a registered notice on 22.1.1997 with false allegations to prepare a ground for a divorce. She had denied all the allegations made in the petition and has her own version and has put it that she is a person who had been wronged and that the mental and physical cruelty had been inflicted only on the wife by the husband and not vice versa.