S. MURUGAN Vs. VAIKUNDA LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband filed O.P.No. 80 of 1990 under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the file of the Sub -Court, Padmanabhapuram praying for a decree for divorce by dissolving the marriage solemnised between the petitioner and the respondent on 24.1.1988. It was re -numbered after it was transferred to the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, as O.P.No. 28 of 1994. The wife filed O.P.No. 53 of 1991 under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and for costs. The said petition also was transferred to the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai and re -numbered as O.P.No. 27 of 1994. pending the said O.P. the husband filed I.A.No. 260 of 1991 seeking an order of injunction restraining the wife from making complaints to the dowry prohibition cell and filing criminal cases. The husband and wife contested the respective petitions filed by each other, by filing counters in the respective petitions. The learned Sub Judge in his order dated 28.9.1994, allowed the O.P.No. 28 of 1994 and dismissed the O.P.No. 27 of 1994. Aggrieved against the same, the wife filed appeal in A.S.No. 13 of 1995 against the order in O.P.No. 27 of 1994, and A.S.No. 10 of 1995 against the order passed in O.P.No. 28 of 1994. In the common order dated 21.11.1995, the learned District Judge modified the decree as one into judicial separation instead of decree for divorce granted by the learned Sub Judge. Aggrieved against the same, the husband has filed C.M.S.A.No. 17 of 1996, the wife has filed C.M.S.A.Nos. 27 and 28 of 1996.

(2.) The parties were married on 24.1.1988. Even on the date of the marriage, in view of the fact that while tying the thali, the sacred portion of the thali fell upside down the wife felt it to be a bad symptom and she cried in the kalyana mandapam itself. According to the husband, she expressed her disappointment with respect to his complexion and she felt that she was duped by her parents in getting her consent for the marriage. On the first day itself she went to the extent of cursing herself for becoming the wife of a man who is black in colour. It is stated in the petition that the wife started to attribute bad character to the mother of the petitioner and other family members. The next day she blamed the sister of the petitioner as if she had stolen her jewels. But the same was found only underneath the almirah. Subsequently the wife had admitted that she had placed the same safely in order to avoid committing theft by other ladies. He has to sleep outside the room, as the wife locked the room from inside. But the wife told the petitioner that he might have slept with his sister. According to the husband, the wife also used to threaten him that she would commit suicide by hanging in the ceiling fan. These are all the incidents that caused mental cruelty and agony to the husband due to the conduct of the wife. On the tenth day of the marriage, the wife left the matrimonial home without his consent and knowledge and without even informing to anybody in the house. In spite of his mother went twice to take her back, the wife refused. But, on the other hand the wife informed that she would not return to the house in which immoral ladies are living. Thereafter under compulsion she came and stayed for a few days with the petitioner. But on 7.5.1988 she again left the matrimonial home with all her belongings with the help of her brother without informing the petitioner, with the intention to bring cohabitation with the husband to an end permanently. She has not even informed the birth of a female child for she informed the petitioner that she was pregnant. According to the husband though she was writing letters, they are only false. In each of those letters, she used to say that the husband's mother and sister are of immoral character. In the letter dated 25.2.1989 she alleged that the petitioner is a murderer. In support of his submission regarding cruelty, the husband has also relied on Exs.A -4 and A -5 the complaints given to the High Court against the husband by the wife, which are ultimately found not proved.

(3.) The wife filed counter denying the averments mentioned in the petition. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner wanted money and some jewels. She has also stated that the mother -in -law did not permit her to go with her husband. She has also stated that the family members of the husband were acting very cruelly towards her. It is also her case that her husband and mother -in -law were insisting on her that she should get 15 sovereigns of ornaments from her father; otherwise she would be murdered. She has also stated that she never deserted her husband, and, only with his consent, she left to her parents' house. On the advice of one Mr. K. Rathanasami, Advocate, she went to the house of her husband in the month of June, 1988. When she entered the house, the mother and sister of the husband scolded her and they also stated that she should not live with the petitioner. Since they insisted her to go away to her parent's house, finally on 13.7.1988 the wife went to the house of her parents for delivery. As per the custom and practice, the parents and other close relatives came to the house of the husband on 13.7.1993, and took the wife to her parents' house, after conduction necessary ceremonies. So, it cannot be said, according to the wife, that she deserted the husband. Even with respect to the letters as alleged by the husband, according to the wife, she has not sent any such letter. In spite of several advice by several persons, the husband did not take the wife to his conjugal home. According to her, the sole object of the husband is to marry again and get huge amount as dowry. Under these circumstances, according to her, she wrote a letter on 22.5.1989, and some other letters, explaining the facts. She has also stated that she had always been ready and willing and still ready and willing to join the petitioner and lead the family life. But, only her husband has deserted her According to her, only her husband has deserted her and caused cruelty towards her, and he cannot take advantage of his own wrong and file the petition for divorce. With the above pleadings she has prayed for dismissal of the petition filed by her husband. Even in the other O.P. she averred the same things and so they need not be repeated again.