RANI Vs. M MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the Principal Family Court, Madras dated 14-06-2000 made in F.C.O.P.No. 902 of 95, granting Divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wife has filed the above appeal before this Court.

(2.) The respondent herein-husband filed F.C.O.P.No. 902/95 on the file of the Family Court, Madras seeking dissolution of their marriage dated 02-03-94 by a decree of Divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the petition it is stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 2-3-94 at Parvathy Ramaswamy Kalyana Mantapam, Anna Nagar, Madras-40 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Subsequent to the marriage, they commenced the matrimonial life at No.36, Bashyam Reddy 2nd Street, Ottery, Madras-12. According to the husband, on the very next day of the marriage her wife demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- for purchase of a wrist watch for her sister. When he asked for reason, she insulted him by using filthy words. It is further stated that she used to quarrel with him often and thereby causing mental agony. She did not even cooperate with him not only in matrimonial matters, but also in house-hold affairs. She informed that she was very friendly with one Ramesh prior to the marriage and she openly said that she was very eager to marry him. She did not even inform him the birth of a child. Even her parents did not inform about the birth of the child either to him or to the elders of his family. In the light of her attitude, her husband issued a notice on 29-7-95 through his advocate calling upon her to give consent for divorce. Though the notice was duly received by her, she neither complied with the demand made in the notice nor sent any reply. Hence the husband filed the petition for divorce.

(3.) The wife filed a counter statement disputing various averments made by her husband. Apart from denying all the averments, it is stated that she wrote 4 letters to her husband, but he has not replied to the same and not taken any effort to take her back to the matrimonial home. When she visited her husband's house on 15-8-95 along with her parents, because of his attitude, they returned to the home. Even though she is eager to live with him, he has not taken steps to take her and the child back.