JUSTYN CYRIL Vs. HANNAH VASANTHIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original petition under Secs.18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act was filed by the husband. He married the respondent on 15.9 1986 at Grace Church, Tirunagar, Madurai District.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the marriage was never consummated. When he made attempts to convince the respondent and have intercourse with her, she became violent and resisted the attempts of the petitioner. IT is stated that on 5.10.1986, the respondent became violent and caused injuries to the petitioner. The petitioner made a complaint to the elders of both the families. The respondent's mother as well as her grandfather were also informed. The respondent went to her mother's house on 25.10.1986, and refused to come back. She started living there permanently. She was also stating thai the petitioner could marry another lady, and she had no objection therefor. Thereafter, there was an attempt for mediation, and the respondent executed a document called "divorce deed". IT was executed on 22.10.1986 and registered in the Office of the Joint Registrar, Madurai, on the same day. The document is attested by three witnesses. IT is signed not only by the respondent but also by her mother. The respondent has clearly stated in the said document that she is not inclined to have any marital relationship or intercourse with the petitioner. She has consented for the petitioner marrying somebody else, and she has also consented for the divorce of the marriage.

(3.) THE respondent remained ex parte.