BABY Vs. P DHANAPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the wife. The respondent is the husband. The appellant is aggrieved by the Order dated 04.04.2016 passed in H.M.O.P. No. 152 of 2015 on the file of Family Court, Erode, by which, the petition filed by her under Section 13 (1) (ia) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage solemnised between her and the respondent on 19.11.2010, was dismissed.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that the marriage between her and the respondent was solemnised on 19.11.2010 as per Hindu rites and Customs. According to the appellant, at the time of marriage, it was represented that the respondent was employed in Thirupur Eastman Export Company and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. At that time, the appellant was employed as Lecturer in Nanda College. After the marriage, the appellant, respondent and the parents of the respondent lived jointly for about eight months. Thereafter, the appellant and the respondent lived in the house owned by the father of the appellant at Munnamparappu. According to the appellant, only at the time when the appellant and the respondent shifted the residence to Munnamparappu, she came to know that the respondent is jobless. When it was questioned, the respondent replied that he is working as a L.I.C. Agent and earning money. In this regard, the respondent requested the appellant to take a policy in her name by paying a sum of Rs.40,000/- once in six months towards premium amount and accordingly, she has taken a Life Insurance Policy during the year 2011 through the respondent for which she paid a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards premium covering a period of six renewals at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per renewal. Further, the appellant has paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent towards premium amount for the policy taken in the name of her family members. It is the specific grievance of the appellant that the respondent, under the guise of acting as an L.I.C. Agent, did not go for any other employment and when it was questioned, he scolded the appellant in filthy language. According to the appellant, the respondent ill-treated her by stating that she is not fit enough to give birth to a child. By saying so, the respondent also prevented the appellant to sleep in the night, which had a bearing on her while attending to her work on the next day. Above all, the appellant made it clear that the respondent is not inclined to go for any employment and demanded the appellant to bring more amount from her parents. On one occasion, when the physical and mental abuse increased manifold, the appellant resigned from her employment. Thereafter, to prove that the appellant is fit enough to bear a child, she had undergone a medical check up along with the respondent. The medical examination revealed that there is deficiency on the part of the respondent which deprived the appellant to bear a child. After the deficiency of the respondent become apparent, he started treating the appellant cruelly. The respondent, during August 2014, demanded the appellant to bring a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents to enable him to start a business. Further, the respondent also pledged all the jewels of the appellant, which were offered at the time of marriage by her parents, and spent all the amount thereof. According to the appellant, unable to bear the mental and physical harassment inflicted on her by the repsondent, she left the matrimonial home on 07.02.2015 and took shelter with her parents. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint given by the appellant on 11.04.2015 before the Superintendent of Police, Erode, an enquiry was conducted during which the respondent had returned the 18 = sovereigns of gold ornaments of the appellant, which were pledged by him. According to the appellant, there is no scope for re-union since the matrimonial relationship between the appellant and the respondent had irretrievably broken leaving no scope for resolution of the matrimonial dispute.

(3.) The respondent filed a counter affidavit before the Family Court opposing the Petition filed by the appellant for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. According to the respondent, he was employed in Easement Export Company, Tirupur. It is due to the insistence of the appellant not to go for an employment at Tirupur, he resigned his employment and started a textile business of his own. When appellant and the respondent were residing along with the parents of the respondent, at the request of the appellant, the respondent stayed in the house owned by the father of the appellant at Mullamparappu. After setting up a separate residence, the appellant behaved rudely towards the respondent and did not respect him. Further, even during the year 2002, when the respondent was studying in the college, he was working as a L.I.C. Agent on part time basis and from and out of such income, he was maintaining his family. The L.I.C. policies were taken in the name of the appellant and her families on their own and the premium amount have been remitted in the office of the Life Insurance Corporation periodically. The appellant resigned the employment as Lecturer due to the fact that she was advised by the Doctors to take rest as she was weak and fragile and it had a bearing on her health to bear a child and not due to the mental harassment inflicted on her by the respondent, as alleged. Since there was no child born to the appellant and the respondent, the appellant as well as the respondent have subjected themselves to periodical medical examination from 2011 to 2014 and such expenses were borne by the respondent. Inspite of the advise given by the Doctors, the appellant had gone to Singapore on 20.08.2014 to see her sister and returned to India on 01.09.2014. The respondent has maintained and treated the appellant well and she was not subjected to physical or mental harassment, as alleged. The appellant voluntarily deserted the respondent from his matrimonial relationship during January 2015 and thereafter, she has given a complaint on 07.02.2015 to the Superintendent of Police, Erode against the respondent. During the course of enquiry, the respondent had returned the 18 = sovereigns of gold jewels of the appellant and it was also acknowledged by her. The appellant has not shown any interest to lead a happy matrimonial life with the respondent due to instigation of her parents and relatives. The Petition filed for divorce by the appellant has no merits and therefore, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.