SHARMILA DEVI Vs. S SRIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife is the appellant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree for restitution of conjugal rights granted in favour of the respondent. THE facts of the case are stated hereunder.

(2.) THE respondent claimed that he had married the appellant on 2.3.1997 at Door No.9, Muthukumaraswamy Street, Perambur, Chennai-11. THE marriage was performed in accordance with Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Even before the marriage, the two were in love and the marriage was consummated. THE appellant obtained a seat in B.E. Course and till her marriage, her parents were meeting her educational expenses. But, after her marriage, it was only the respondent who paid for the appellant's education. During June 1997, the appellant became pregnant, but that pregnancy was terminated. THEre was a regular letter correspondence between the respondent and the appellant till the end of 1998. THEreafter, the appellant stopped writing. She did not even care to reply to the respondent's letters. She avoided meeting him and withdrew from the society of the respondent. THE respondent sent a lawyer's notice, for which there was no positive response from the appellant and therefore, he was compelled to file the suit.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant would submit that the specific case of the respondent is that he married the appellant on 2.3.1997 and that the marriage was performed in accordance with Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act. LEARNED counsel submitted that though the trial court had believed the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 for accepting the case of marriage, the documents produced, which are private and personal letters written by the respondent himself to the appellant, would show that the marriage had not taken place on 2.3.1997 and if so, the marriage between the parties remains unproved and therefore, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights is not maintainable. LEARNED counsel submitted that even if they had had an intimate relationship with each other, which resulted in the appellant becoming pregnant, that would not automatically give rise to a presumption that there was a marriage. LEARNED counsel submitted that all the witnesses who had spoken of a ceremony like that were interested witnesses, being the respondent's friends. LEARNED counsel submitted that the appellant had produced two certificates from her college to the effect that she was inside the college hostel on 2.3.1997 and therefore, the respondent had come to court with a false case. LEARNED counsel read the various portions of the exhibits to show that there was no marriage.