S MURUGAN Vs. K RAJESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeals are directed against the common order of the Family Court, Coimbatore, dated 14. 11. 2000 passed in H. M. O. P. Nos. 715 and 755 of 1995.

(2.) WHILE H. M. O. P. Nos. 715 of 1995 was filed by the husband for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, H. M. O. P. Nos. 755 of 1995 was filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court, after considering the materials available on record, dismissed the petition for divorce and allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/husband.

(3.) 1. It is seen that the trial Court, on the basis of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the contention of the appellant/husband to the effect that the respondent/wife had been quarrelling with him even from the very fifth day of their marriage cannot be true, since out of their wedlock, two children were born and if at all the respondent /wife had no intention to join with the appellant/husband, she would not have returned to the matrimonial home nor would have lead the family life. The trial Court also disbelieved the evidence of the appellant/husband as P. W. 1 that the respondent/wife ill-treated him and that she had no liking to him on the basis of the evidence of the respondent/wife, as R. W. 1 that he demanded money and gold and also told her that if he had waited for six more months, he would have got a wealthy lady as his wife. The evidence of the respondent/ wife with regard to the intention of the appellant/husband in marrying her sister for second time, was also found to be proved by the evidence of R. W. 2, Suguna, the sister of the respondent/wife, who has stated that she used to receive letters from the appellant/husband as well as by the documentary evidence, viz. , Ex. A-4, the reply notice dated 30. 11. 95 sent by the respondent/wife to the appellant/ husband and Ex. B-3, the letter written by the appellant/husband to R. W. 2, Suguna, sister of the respondent /wife. In Ex. A-4, it is found stated that when she refused to give her consent for second marriage, the appellant/ husband ill-treated her by beating severely and also drove her away from the matrimonial home. In Ex. B-3, the appellant/husband has stated that R. W. 2, Suguna, must give a favourable reply for his proposal to marry her. That apart, the letter given by the appellant/husband to R. W. 2, Suguna, is also fortified by evidence of R. Ws. 3 and 4, who participated in the panchayat and they also warned the appellant/husband not to repeat that act. As rightly found by the trial Court, there can be no motive for R. Ws. 3 and 4 to speak falsehood against the appellant/husband and there is also no material on the side of the appellant/husband contradicting the evidence of R. Ws. 3 and 4. It is also pertinent to note that in Ex. B-1, a xerox copy of the letter addressed by the appellant/husband to one Madaiyan, in whose house the panchayat was held, the appellant/husband has stated that he would not hereafter interfere with Suguna's (R. W. 2) life, in which R. Ws. 3 and 4 have also signed.