LAKSHMI PRIYA Vs. K V KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the wife questioning the decree of annulment of marriage granted by the lower court in the petition filed by the petitioner-husband, who is the respondent herein. The husband filed the petition for annulment of marriage on the ground that the wife was suffering from irregular menstruation, which fact was suppressed at the time of marriage and as the marriage was not consummated, he was subjected to mental agony and cruelty.

(2.) THE case of the respondent herein, as set out in the original petition filed by him, is as follows:THE marriage of the petitioner/husband with the respondent/wife took place on 5.6.1998 at Uthukottai, Periapalayam according to Hindu rites and customs. At that time, the respondent/wife was employed at Sriharikotta as a Probationer and she used to come to petitioner's house once in a week. THE respondent/wife was not interested in marital obligation and was very adamant and the marriage was not consummated. THE respondent/wife used to have menstruation once in four or six months and the fact was suppressed by her at the time of marriage. THE respondent/wife was also taken to Doctor for treatment by the mother of petitioner/husband, but she refused to co-operate and take medicines. Even after setting up a separate residence, the marriage was not consummated and she forcibly entered into his parent's house and is staying there. As the marriage was not consummated and the behaviour and conduct of the respondent/wife caused him mental agony and cruelty, the petitioner/husband filed the original petition.

(3.) WHEN the matter was taken up for hearing today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent/wife, who is the appellant herein. We perused the materials available on record and also heard Mr.R.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, who is the respondent herein. Learned counsel for the respondent herein tried to sustain the judgment of the lower Court by contending that it is clearly established from the evidence on record that the respondent/wife had irregular menstruation, that the respondent/wife has not complied with the marital obligation and thereby caused mental agony and cruelty to the petitioner/husband. He further contended that the consent of the petitioner/husband for the marriage had been obtained by wilful suppression of the above material facts relating to the respondent/wife and as such, the marriage is liable to be annulled.