M. VISWANATHAN Vs. J. PADMAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/husband has filed this appeal questioning the correctness of the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Family Court, The Nilgiris @ Udhagamandalam in IA No. 57 of 2015 in HMOP No. 69 of 2014. By the said order dated 31.07.2015, the Family Court partly allowed the application filed by the wife/ respondent and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as interim maintenance together with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

(2.) As per the averments in HMOP No. 69 of 2014 filed by the appellant, it could be seen that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 29.01.2012 at the residence of the appellant at Kallakorai Village as per Hindu rites and customs. According to the appellant, within 3 days of the marriage, the appellant and respondent came down to Chennai where the appellant was employed. It is the contention of the appellant that the respondent avoided and evaded to have sexual intercourse with him for the reasons best known to her. When the appellant caused enquiries in this regard, he came to know that the respondent did not even attain puberty and she is unfit for marital life. It is the specific contention of the appellant that the respondent and her parents have suppressed the above said facts and performed the marriage and thereby he was cheated. According to the appellant, the respondent, when questioned about her physical condition, deserted his matrimonial company and stayed in her parents house. While staying at her parents house, the respondent had sent a notice dated 12.09.2013 containing false and untenable averments. The appellant was therefore constrained to issue a reply notice dated 20.09.2013 repudiating the averments made in the notice dated 12.09.2013. Thereafter, the appellant has filed the present petition under section 11 of The Hindu Marriage Act for a declaration to declare that the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent on 29.01.2012 is null and void.

(3.) On notice, the respondent has filed I.A. No. 57 of 2015 contending that she did not desert the matrimonial company of the appellant on her own and that she was asked to stay in her parents house for some time by none else the appellant. It was further stated that she is residing along with her mother and brothers and she has no independent source of income or wherewithal to maintain herself. It was also stated that the appellant was employed in Madras Port Trust at the time of marriage and he was in receipt of more than Rs. 30,000/- as salary per month. In such circumstances, the respondent has filed the I.A. No. 57 of 2015 seeking to direct the appellant to pay maintenance to her at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.