P KALYANASUNDARAM Vs. K PAQUIALATCHAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and the respondent are husband and wife; the marriage between them took place on 4-7-1984 at Pondicherry, according to Hindu rites and custom; It was also registered before the Registrar, Pondicherry. The husband was working in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. Soon after the marriage, the husband and wife were residing at Delhi till 1988; they are living separately from 1988. There were some earlier judicial proceedings between the parties Presently, the husband filed M. O. P. 94 of 1991 on the file of the Family Court, Pondichery against the wife seeking dissolution, of marriage. The Family Court dismissed his petition. C. M. A. No. 1550 of 1995 is against challenging the judgment dismissing his petition for divorce. Subsequent to the dismissal of M. O. P. 94 of 1991, the wife filed M. O. P. 110 of 1995 seeking restoration of conjugal rights. The Court granted a decree of restitution of conjugal of conjugal rights; Challenging that, the husband has preferred C. M. A. No. 1758 of 1996. Thus in both the C. M. As., the husband is the appellant. In view of the nature of dispute, both the C. M. As. are heard together. C. M. A. No. 1550 of 1995 :

(2.) The husband in his petition, M. O. P. 94 of 1991 has stated that the wife had an overwhelming attachment towards her father and had an irresistible temptation to meet her father and hence very often she visited Pondicherry and stayed there for months together. The father of his wife is a wealthy person in the locality; He wanted his daughter by his side in Pondicherry; hence he requested the husband to get a job in Pondicherry: It was not to the liking of the husband . In the year 1988, the wife left the matrimonial home at Delhi and did not return thereafter, in spite of repeated requests made by the husband. This compelled the husband for making an application to the University of Pondicherry for a job; But he did not get the job. The father of the wife did not send her back on the ground of giving medical treatment; When he asked for a proof of her daughters treatment, he abused him. A child was born to them on 5-7-1987. The petitioner was always prepared to condone the failings of his wife and take her and lead a peaceful life; Therefore, he filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H. M. A. 409 of 1988 before the District Judge, Delhi. But, the wife filed a petition before the Principal Sub-Judge, Pondicherry in M. O. P. No. 96 of 1988 (renumbered as M. O. P. 25 of 1990) seeking judicial separation. The wife obtained stay of the proceedings of the Delhi Court. In view of the stay order granted by the Supreme Court, he withdrew that petition and presented another petition with the same prayer before the Family Court, Pondicherry in M. O. P. 182 of 1990. The respondent/wife invented a string of stories of cruelties in her petition for judicial separation. They are only imaginary and invented only for the purpose of counter-blasting his petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Further, the wife sent petitions to his higher officers in the year 1990 making false allegations; and in the year 1990 also requested to take disciplinary action against the petitioner; in that, she has stated the purpose of the petitioner seeking a relief of restitution of conjugal rights was only to take her to Delhi and to kill her. The respondent/wife also filed a complaint before the Pondicherry Police Station on 25-9-1988. The false allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner are only to cover up the abnormal relations of the respondent with her father. The above conduct of the wife amounts to cruelty.

(3.) It is further stated that the Family Court at Pondicherry heard M. O. P. 25 of 1990 and 182 of 1990 and by a common order dated 5-9-1990 granted judicial separation for nine months in M. O. P. 25 of 1990, it also directed the petitioner to pay Rs.600/ - per month as maintenance to the child and adjourned the matter to 10-6-1991 in order to see whether the parties could come together. But the respondent/wife filed appeals against the order of the Family Court, dated 5-9-1990 before the High Court in C. M. As. 1016 and 1017 of 1990. This makes it clear that the respondent/wife was not prepared for re-union; she was bent upon separation. Even the suggestion made by the Judges of the High Court during the hearing of the C. M. As. was not heeded by the wife. The behaviour of the respondent/wife shows that she is having the doubtful integrity and character. The petitioner was ready and willing to take her back though she left the house without just and reasonable cause. But the respondent did not join the petitioner. The conduct of the wife in withdrawing from the company of the petitioner without any just cause amounts to desertion. Further, the respondent has unjustifiably withdrawn from the society of the petitioner for more than three years. By the conduct of the wife, it is not possible for the husband to live with the wife any longer. Her continued stay with her father is wilful and intentional and amounts to desertion. Hence, he is entitled for a decree of divorce.