SUDAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM Vs. VENNILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the correctness and/or validity of the Decree and Judgment dated 07.04.2016 passed in I.A. No. 80 of 2014 in H.M.O.P. No. 116 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Principal Family Court, Madras. By the said Judgment dated 07.04.2016, the Family Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein to set aside the exparte decree dated 19.12.2013 passed in HMOP No. 116 of 2013 for his non-appearance.

(2.) The respondent/wife has filed O.P. No. 116 of 2013 before the Family Court, Chennai under Section 12 (1) (c) and Section 25 of The Hindu Marriage Act praying to dissolve the marriage solemnised between her and the appellant on 09.12.2010 on the ground of non-consummation of the marriage and for a direction to direct the appellant/husband to pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs to her towards permanent alimony.

(3.) According to the respondent, the marriage between her and the appellant was solemnised on 09.12.2010 at Rathinavinayagar Koil, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore as per Hindu rites and customs and the marriage was also registered with the competent registering authority on the same day namely 09.12.2010. Thereafter, on 10.12.2010, a marriage reception was conducted at Ramakrishna Thirumana Mandapam, Coimbatore. At the time of marriage, according to the respondent, her parents have offered 61 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her and 11 sovereign of jewels to the appellant besides incurring the entire marriage expenses to the tune of Rs.35 lakhs. That apart, household articles worth about Rs.5 lakhs was given at the time of marriage. It is the contention of the respondent that soon after the marriage, the appellant and the respondent lived at the house of the appellant. The respondent stepped into the matrimonial home with lot of hopes and aspirations to lead a blissful life. However, to the shock of the respondent, the moment when she stepped into the matrimonial home, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law have scolded her by stating that the marriage was not performed befitting their status. During such verbal assault, the appellant remained a silent spectator. Further, during the nuptial night, the appellant did not exhibit any zest or interest to have sexual intercourse with her or even prepared to chat with the respondent. When questioned, the appellant replied that they should not consummate the marriage in India and that they could commence it in United States of America where they were to settle down.