VINCENT EDWIN Vs. MRS SHEELA DEVASUGANTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 22 of the Indian Divorce Act, for the passing of a decree of judicial separation.

(2.) IT is averred in the petition that the parties were that married on 7.7.1989 at Madras and the marriage was conducted at Emmanuel Methodist Church Madras-7. IT is further alleged that ever since the date of marriage, the respondent, except for a few months, started showing indifferent attitude Inwards the petitioner as well as to her in-laws, even though the petitioner and his parents never showed any ill-feelings and they thought that the respondent would adjust with them in due course, but it was not so. IT is said that even though on the date of the petition, it was more than four years since the date of marriage, she lived not even for a year with the petitioner. IT is further said that the respondent had left to her parents house in the month of April 1990 for confinement and a female child was born on 12.7.1990 and the respondent came with the child to the petitioner's house in the month of November 1990 and even after that the respondent used to visit her parents' house with the child very frequently. When the petitioner had to leave for Ooty on transfer, the respondent had left to her parents house on her own accord and came and joined the petitioner only when he came down to Madras and gave a false excuse. IT is said that the respondent did not share any amount towards the upkeep of the family except parting with a paltry sum unwillingly for a few months, and later discontinued. IT is further said that the petitioner has been showing affection and utmost respect and expected that she would behave with affection towards the petitioner and his parents, but the respondent never changed her behaviour, and the cause for her behaviour is to separate the petitioner from his parents and take him to her parents' house or elsewhere, and the respondent tried her best to fulfil her motive, but she failed. She is working in Canara Bank as Telephone Operator-cum-Clerk. IT is said that the respondent was slaving only in her parents' place and very rarely visited the petitioner's parents when the petitioner left for U.A.E. on 1.6.1991, even though the petitioner requested the respondent to stay with his parents through letters. IT is also said that when the petitioner returned to Madras from U.A.E., the respondent never cared to meet him when she was informed will in advance. Subsequently, due to the intervention of the respondent's maternal uncle and aunt, the respondent came and joined the petitioner in the month of July 1992. Even after that, the respondent behaved in the same way, and on 31.8.1992, she left the matrimonial home with the child to her parents' house. Subsequently the petitioner came to know that she was suffering from typhoid fever. But, even after recovery, she did not come and join him even though she attended the office and also went to her relatives' house, functions and friends' house on Moped, a two wheeler. Since the respondent failed in her attempts to separate the petitioner from his parents, the respondent started ill-treating the petitioner as well as his parents. According to the petitioner, the respondent's father is also a cause for the unpleasantness and the respondent was taking her father's ill advice. The petitioner has averred that the respondent has completely forgotten the matrimonial obligations in spite of the petitioner's good advice. Therefore, the petitioner issued an advocate notice on 18.4.1993 asking the respondent to come and join him within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice. But the respondent neither cared to send a reply, nor joined the petitioner, wilfully. The petitioner, therefore, prays for a decree of judicial separation

(3.) TO substantiate the case of the petitioner, he has examined himself as P.W. 1.