K.N. LAKSHMINARAYAN Vs. K.J. KAMAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Common Decree and Judgment passed in F. C. O. P. Nos. 3374 of 2009 and 3929 of 2011, on the file of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Chennai, dated 09. 03. 2013. As far as F. C. O. P. No. 3374 of 2009 is concerned, it was filed by the Husband, who is appellant in both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. Further, the F. C. O. P. No. 3374 of 2009 was filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the husband for the relief of dissolution of Marriage. F. C. O. P. No. 3929 of 2011 was filed by the wife who is the respondent herein and the said petition was filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking relief of Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

(2.) Originally F. C. O. P. No. 3929 of 2011 was filed before the Learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, and the same was numbered as H. M. O. P. No. 231 of 2009, but the same was later transferred to the file of the learned Principal Family Court, Chennai and renumbered as F. C. O. P. 3929 of 2011. The parties concerned in both the cases are one and the same and the matter was tried together and the issues framed in both the original petitions were answered by a Common Judgment dated 09. 03. 2013 by the learned trial Court. As the petition filed by the husband in F. C. O. P. No. 3374 of 2009 was dismissed and the petition filed by the wife in F. C. O. P. No. 3929 of 2011 was allowed, the husband has filed both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals challenging the Decree and Common Judgment passed in F. C. O. P. Nos. 3374 of 2009 and 3929 of 2011. As far as the petition in F. C. O. P. No. 3374 of 2009, the husband examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exhibits P1 to P16. At the same time, the Petitioner in FCOP No. 3929 of 2011 was examined herself as RW 1 and Exhibits R1 to R6 were marked. Since two decrees were passed by the learned trial Court, the husband herein has filed C. M. A. Nos. 1330 and 1331 of 2013 as Appellant.

(3.) For the sake of convenience, the husband hereafter would be referred as appellant and the wife would be referred as respondent. The grounds raised by the appellants are more or less similar and the main contention of the appellant is that the learned trial Court has failed to look into the fact that the respondent has no intention for the resumption of her conjugal relationship with the appellant. However, she filed such application with an intention to prevent the appellant from seeking divorce on the ground of desertion. The learned trial Court failed to note that the respondent was staying away from the appellant the mental trauma suffered by the appellant over the acts of the respondent and intentional abuse by the Respondent was not considered. The other grounds of the appellant would be that in spite of the fact that the mental cruelty suffered by the appellant at the hands of the respondent even though was proved that was not considered. On the other hand, the Learned Trial Court was erred in holding that the appellant had not proved his case. Further, the learned Trial Court failed to consider that the respondent lived in the joint family only for two weeks, so she could not have occasioned to ill-treatment in those two weeks as they were busy in visiting temples and the residence of the relatives and also for getting visa.