NIRMALA BALAGOPAL Vs. VENKATESULU BALAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition arises against the order of the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Coimbatore on his having taken on file HMOP. No. 207 of 2002 on the application of the respondent herein and thereupon against the issuance of summons to the revision petitioner.

(2.) The marriage between the petitioner Nirmala Balagopal and the respondent Venkatesaulu Balagopal had, admittedly, taken place at Coimbatore 30 years back, more particularly on 8-6-1972. Thereafter, they lived in United States of America as permanent residents thereof and also obtained green cards for their domicile there. Since there was some misunderstanding between them, the petitioner-wife filed proceedings for separation in the Court of State of Connecticut, United States of America and for reciprocal obligations, they entered into a post marital agreement on 21-1-2000 whereby the respondent-husband agreed that whether or not he resides in India, he will not file any legal action for divorce or legal separation against wife in India. This is found in Clause 11.2 in the above said agreement.

(3.) Subsequently, in the month of November 2000, both of them came to India and began to live in a rented fiat in the Race Course Road, Coimbatore. Again, the relationship became strained and that is why the respondent-husband preferred a petition before the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Coimbatore for dissolution of marriage. In that petition, he contended that although he parted away with US $ 400000 to the petitioner wife according to Clause 3.1 of the said agreement and although he declared the petitioner-wife as the sole beneficiary of his accounts IRA and 401 K at United States of America, the details of which were given in Schedule III of the said agreement, the petitioner-wife continued to ill-treat him by showing scant respect to him and also abused him day in and day out in vulgar language. Despite the same, the respondent-husband was continuing to spend for family expenses including house rent and allied charges and for the comfortable living of the petitioner. He also met the expenses for the treatment of his wife.