R. PRABHAKAR Vs. V. JOTHILAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein/petitioner, viz., Dr. V. Jothilakshmi had filed a case in M.C. No. 12 of 2011 against the petitioners. herein/respondents viz., husband and mother-in-law respectively under Section 18(A)(B)(C)(E)(F)(G), 19(A)(B)(C) and Section 20(C) of Domestic Violence Act stating that she has been married to the first petitioner herein on 05.09.2003. From the date of marriage both the petitioners herein and their family members have been torturing her physically and mentally. She gave birth to a female child on 06.06.2004. Therefore, the petitioners and their family members prevented her from entering the matrimonial home since she gave birth to a female child, Finally, they demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- besides her monthly salary. The second petitioner i.e., the mother-in-law had not provided food and also disconnected the cooking gas connection of the cylinder. Further, she instructed her son not to provide food and maintenance to the wife, therefore, the respondent herein had herself provided all maintenance to the children and also meted out all expenses. The respondent further stated that the second petitioner herein and her daughter had criticized about the complexion of the infant being dark. Therefore, they demanded further dowry and also demanded a motorcycle to the husband, failing which, they threatened that a second marriage will be arranged with a girl of fair complexion, who is financially sound. They obtained her signature in a loan document forcibly and made her legally enforceable to clear the debt. They also removed the name board of the clinic and closed the same. Besides this, the water connection and electricity connection were disconnected. The services of the housemaid was also dispensed with. The respondent further stated that when she conceived for the second time, her mother-in-law had not provided food and other basic requirements, with the result, she was laid up with blood sugar. The petitioners had threatened the respondent that if she delivered a female child for the second time, she would not be permitted to reside within the matrimonial home. Therefore, the respondent/wife had entreated to be provided with accommodation for her residence and her children and also pleaded for payment of maintenance to the minor children.

(2.) The petitioners herein had filed a counter statement and resisted the said petition. The husband stated that his wife was working as a doctor from the year 2004 onwards at various hospitals, viz., Vijaya Hospital, Kamakshi Memorial Hospital, V-care Hospital. Now she is permanently working as a medical officer, employed with the Chennai Corporation Hospital. From the date of marriage his wife has been saying she desired to marry a doctor, but her father compelled her to marry the first petitioner herein. He is always doing his service to his wife as a dutiful husband and had maintained her through his earnings as a Manager in the bank. The first petitioner further stated that whenever both of them attended any function, his wife would say to others that she is a doctor, but her husband is a bank employee and so she was not satisfied with his treatment. On one occasion, his wife removed her thali. Occasionally, the first petitioner herein used to return late at night after finishing his office work and at such times, she would lock the door and keep him waiting for long periods. The first petitioner further stated that his mother and sister are taking much care on his second female child and they are providing all necessary things. He had obtained a loan from the bank in order to purchase a two wheeler which was not provided as promised by her. The petitioners family members are very happy with the female child. Further the second child was also a female and this was known by scan method, three months after conception. The first petitioner and his family members had taken his wife to a private hospital for her second delivery and during that time all the family members took much care of the respondent and the newly born infant. The petitioners and the family members had extended their co-operation to his wife for her higher education; they never criticized about her complexion that she was dark.

(3.) The first petitioner herein further stated that he is earning Rs. 17,000/- and his wife's earnings is Rs. 35,000/- per month. But, even so, she never contributed any amount towards the family and children's education. The first petitioner with the efforts of his sister got admission for the first child at SBOA School and meted out all educational expenses of the child including uniform. The respondent herein being a natural mother had not spent any money towards the first child's education. Under the circumstances, the respondent/wife without informing to the first petitioner obtained the transfer certificate of the child from the school and as such, the child's education of one year was interrupted. On 11.11.2010, the respondent herein left the matrimonial home along with her two children and joined up at her parents residence at Adayar. A duplicate of the matrimonial house key is in her possession. Hence, she can return any time to the matrimonial home. The first petitioner herein and her family members had never driven her out of the matrimonial home at any point of time, as alleged by her. The respondent's clinic board had not been removed by either the petitioner or his family members. The clinic board was violating Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Norms, since the electricity connection was provided for residential purpose and not for clinics. Therefore, on the instruction of the electricity board official, the sign board of the clinic was removed and not with any other ulterior motive as alleged by the respondent herein. On 26.12.2010, the respondent herein came with her father in a car and collected her belongings including her two wheeler and a baby cycle. The first petitioner and his family members are residing at door No. 733, 4th Street, Anna Nagar West Extension, which had been purchased by his father after raising a loan from the bank and now his father repaying the amount to the bank from his monthly pension. As such, the first petitioner is not the owner of the residential property. The first petitioner further submitted that his wife is having two houses, i.e., one at Annanagar West and the other at Ashok Nagar, Chennai. At the time of marriage the parents of the respondent herein had presented five sovereigns gold necklace, four sovereigns bracelet, two sovereigns finger ring and other gold rings weighing four grams. The respondent's father had also provided 75 sovereigns gold jewellery to the wife and also provided various house hold articles etc.,