R. SEENU Vs. N. PORKODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has come forward with this appeal aggrieved by the common order dated 30.04.2011 passed in O.P. No. 1036 of 2003 and OP No. 2202 of 2004 on the file of II Additional Family Judge, Chennai. By the said Order dated 30.04.2011, the Family Court dismissed OP No. 1036 of 2003 filed by the appellant for dissolution of the marriage and allowed OP No. 2202 of 2004 filed by the wife/respondent herein under section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

(2.) As both the appeals arise out of the common order dated 30.04.2011, besides common arguments have been advanced by counsel for both sides, these appeals are taken up together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) The appellant herein has filed OP No. 1036 of 2003 before the Family Court, Chennai under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter called as the Act. As per the averments contained in the Original Petition, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 14.11.1999 as per Hindu rites and customs at Aruna Thirumana Mandapam, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. It is the contention of the appellant that at the time of marriage, he or his family members did not demand any dowry from the respondent and in fact, he had spent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for commemoration of the marriage ceremony. Initially after the marriage, the appellant and the respondent commenced their matrimonial life at No. 1, Kannithamizh Street, Bakthavachalam Nagar, Nanganallur Chennai and thereafter, they have shifted to Gandhi Nagar, Saligramam, where they lived till 19.03.2003. In the meantime, on 19.02.2003, due to the wedlock between the appellant and the respondent, a female child - Padmashri @ Priyadarshini was born. Soon after the birth of the child, when the appellant went to see the child, he was denied access by the respondent for the reasons best known to her. It was also complained by the appellant that the respondent never discharged her matrimonial obligations as a dutiful Hindu wife. It was specifically stated that the respondent never used to cook food in the house, with the result, the appellant was compelled to buy food from the hotel. It was also complained that the respondent failed to keep the house clean. Whenever it was questioned, the respondent projected rude and unruly behaviour towards him, which often ended in quarrel. Further, the respondent threatened the appellant that she would foist false case against him if he questions her behaviour. Even though the appellant portrayed kind behaviour towards the respondent and even extended financial assistance for purchase of Maruti 800 Air-conditioned car to the brother of the respondent namely Sudhakar at the time of his marriage, the respondent has not equally reciprocated the love and affection shown by him. Further, the respondent prevented the appellant from meeting his aged parents at his native place. According to the appellant, on 23.03.2002 at about 8 p.m. the respondent picked up quarrel with him for trivial and unnecessary reasons and assaulted him with hands. Notwithstanding the same, the respondent called upon her father, brother and other relatives to come to the matrimonial home and they have also visited the matrimonial home and had beaten the appellant without ascertaining the reasons for the quarrel between the couple. As the appellant suffered physically and mentally at the instance of the respondent, the matrimonial life between them has broken irretrievably. Therefore, the appellant has filed the Original Petition seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnised on 14.11.1999 on the ground of desertion and cruelty.