GOPAL RAMANATHAN Vs. JAYASHREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-husband, who is a doctor filed O.P. No.595 of 2001 against the respondent wife under section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriages Act seeking a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage that took place between the parties on 10.06.1988 at Chennai and the respondent-wife filed O.P. No.995 of 2002 before the same Court for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the cases were disposed of by the II Additional Family Judge, Chennai by a common order dated 12.07.2006 by dismissing the O.P. filed by the appellant-husband and as necessary corollary the O.P. filed by the respondent wife was allowed directing the appellant-husband to restore to the respondent-wife all the comforts and bliss of married life. THE correctness of the said order is canvassed in these appeals by the appellant-husband. For the sake of convenience, the husband is referred to as the appellant and wife is referred to as the respondent.

(2.) THE material facts of the case proceed as follows :THE marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 10.06.1988 at Hotel Kanchi, Chennai, as per the Hindu rites and customs. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent had negative attitude and was pessimistic not only with the appellant, but also with the other family members of the appellant. THE appellant thought that the respondent would change in due course of time and gave her a long rope. Even after seven years of marriage, the respondent has not changed her attitude. However she was interested to spend more time with her parents. THE appellant used to take the respondent out of city for three to four weeks in a year with the fond hope that the respondent's attitude towards the appellant would change and they could lead a normal life. THE respondent never took any initiatives to have intercourse with the appellant to develop the family ever after lapse of years of marriage. All the initiation taken by the appellant to make the respondent to lead a normal family life ended in vain. THE respondent's parents took no initiatives to rectify the indifferent attitude of the respondent, when it was informed to them. It is the case of the appellant that even though the appellant and the respondent lived under the same roof, for a year or more, they had no conversation among themselves. When the appellant wanted to sort out the problem, the respondent mistook and left the matrimonial home on 07.04.2000 along with her belongings. Both of them had a counseling before the famous Psychiatrist Dr. Mathrubutham. He expressed that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent would not work out and the marriage has irretrievably broken down and advised them to part with each other.

(3.) AS stated earlier in the preamble portion, the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai dismissed the petition filed by the appellant for divorce and allowed the petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights.