S.SHANHMUGA KALAIVANI Vs. S. GANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated November 4, 2015 made in H.M.O.P. No.696 of 2012 by 'the Additional Family Court, Coimbatore' ['Family Court' for short], the respondent therein who is the wife, has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Petition.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnized on August 20, 2010 as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer at 'Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation' ['TNSTC' for short]. The respondent was working as a teacher in a private school at Palani. After their marriage, the couple were living at Alandhurai, Coimbatore District in a Joint Family. Before marriage, the petitioner was given the respondent's Horoscope which showed her date of birth as November 4, 1971. However, after marriage, the petitioner learnt from her Secondary School Cumulative Record that her actual date of birth is June 1, 1967. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent's side fraudulently suppressed her real age to conduct the marriage. Further, the respondent supressed her respiratory conditions. The respondent without any reason would quarrel with the petitioner's parents and verbally abuse the petitioner. Further, she would frequently leave for her parental home without any intimation. Further, the respondent would talk ill about her sexual life with the petitioner in front of the family members. Further, without any intimation, the respondent frequently brought her relatives home every time she returned from her parental house. Out of the two years of their living together in the marriage, the respondent for about one year stayed at her parental house. Further, the respondent threatened for separate living. The acts and conduct of the respondent caused mental agony to the petitioner. Hence, it is not possible for the petitioner to live along with the respondent. Accordingly, he seeks divorce under Ss. 13 (1) (i-a) and 13 (1) (i-b) of 'Hindu Marriage Act, 1955' ['H.M. Act' for short].