JYOTHI AMMAL Vs. K ANJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The earlier appeal is against the decree of the Family Court, Chennai in O.P.No.950/1988 granting the relief of divorce at the instance of the husband and the latter appeal is against the decree of the Family Court in O.S.No.79/1990 rejecting wife's claim for past maintenance and future maintenance. Wife is the appellant in the earlier appeal and wife and her son are the appellants in the latter appeal. Heard Mr.S.Subbiah learned counsel appearing for the appellant/appellants and Mr. S. Gunalan learned counsel for the respondent in each appeal.

(2.) Even at the outset, we want to state that we are dealing with a painful subject of deciding an issue between husband and wife revolving around wife's chastity. A learned Judge of this court in the judgment reported in 1983 (1) M.L.J. Pg.395 (Ramanathan Vs. Subbulakshmi) had held as hereunder:

(3.) The pleadings are in English and it is elaborately extracted in the common judgment of the Family Court. Since the pleadings are found elaborately extracted in the common judgment of the Family Court, we are not re-stating the pleadings. We are also inclined to decide the appeals by our common judgment as done by the Family Court. We will refer the parties to the appeals as "husband" and "wife". Wife gave birth to a child named Sasikumar on 13.04.1984. Sasikumar is the second appellant in the latter appeal. Husband complained that he is not the father of Sasikumar. He pleaded that for about two years i.e., from October 1982, he did not have any sexual contact with his wife and he and his wife, from then onwards, were living in separate portions in the same house (we find that the divorce petition was presented some time in November 1984). He had further alleged that two brothers by name Elaveerasingam and Vetriveerasingam became tenants under him in the upstairs portion of the house, in which, he and his wife were living in the ground floor and his wife developed illicit intimacy with Vetriveerasingam. According to him, he came to know about this affair in October 1983 when he came to know that his wife became pregnant. He reiterated in the pleadings that since he did not have any sexual contact for more than two years, he could not be the father of the child in the womb of his wife. Wife denied the claim of the husband. She had admitted that she knew Vetriveerasingam only as a tenant in respect of a portion of the property and beyond that, she did not know anything about the said Vetriveerasingam and that she never had any contact with him at all. Her pleadings show that twice before the birth of Sasikumar, she conceived and due to pressure brought on her by her husband, she aborted on each occasion with the help of native Doctors. When she conceived again after the two abortions referred to above, husband insisted that she must abort, which she refused. She stood her ground. But however, she later on succumbed to the pressure of her husband by expressing her readiness to abort the child, if it is done in the Port Trust Hospital. As her husband was not willing for that treatment, she stood firm in carrying the child and that made her husband to develop a hatred against her and from then onwards, she was living separately. During her separate stay, her husband did not give her anything at all.