S. MANOHAR Vs. M.VIJAYALAKSHMI ALIAS RENUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the CMAs are filed by the husband as against the common order dated 31.07.2014 made in O.P.No.2127 of 2010 and O.P.No.2959 of 2010. In so far as C.M.A.No.3305 of 2014 is concerned it is filed against the order passed in O.P.No.2959 of 2010 allowing the petition filed by the respondent/wife seeking the Restitution of Conjugal Rights and C.M.A.No.3319 of 2014 is filed against the order of dismissal passed in O.P.No.2127 of 2010 filed by the petitioner/husband. Since the above CMAs are filed as against the common order, the same are heard together and a common order is passed here under.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that he and respondent herein are acquaintance to each other. He married the respondent out of coercion and force on 28.02001 and the same was registered under Hindu Marriage Act before the Office of the District Registrar, Chennai North. After the marriage both of them went to their respective parent's house and the marriage was not even consummated between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent is living separately in a hostel, but she never chose to live with the petitioner and thereby she willfully and deliberately deserted the appellant herein. Though there were several differences between the appellant and the respondent, but all the efforts taken by the appellant to sort out the same ended in vain. Since the respondent failed to join with the appellant and therefore the marriage solemnized between them has irretrievably break down. As there is no possibility of reunion, the appellant sent a lawyer notice dated 106.2010 to the respondent and the same was returned. Hence the appellant filed the petition for divorce to dissolve the marriage held between them on 28.08.2001 under Sec. 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(3.) The respondent herein filed counter affidavit and denied the entire allegation leveled against her by the appellant-husband. The respondent also filed O.P.No.2959 of 2010 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. The respondent denied that she forced and compelled the appellant herein for a registered marriage and she denied that they never lived as husband and wife and the marriage was not consummated. She further denied that she deserted the appellant and the marriage has been irretrievably broken. She never received any lawyer notice as alleged by the appellant herein. According to the respondent, in the year 1999 she had the acquaintance of the appellant as a friend and at that time he was working as a Managing Director of Yes Vee Brothers. As per the request of the appellant, she joined in the said Yes Vee Brothers as a clerk in the year 2000. Thereafter the appellant proposed his love to the respondent which was reluctantly accepted by her since both of afraid to disclose their love with their parents, therefore their marriage was registered on 28.02.2001 before the Marriage Registrar, Chennai North. Their marriage was consummated. In fact, the appellant got a leased house at Anna Nagar, Chennai where they lived as husbandwife from 09.07.2009 to Nov. 2009. Thereafter the said rented house at Anna Nagar was kept under lock and key by the appellant herein. The respondent is still having the same love and affection for the appellant in spite of his heaping fabricated, imaginary and loathsome allegation against the respondent herein. The respondent hailed from a respectable educated family and she is an Assistant Professor and Deputy Head of the Department in reputed college. She is the legally wedded wife of the appellant herein and she has unassailable right to live with the appellant. Hence she prayed to allow the petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights filed by her.