J V JONADAB Vs. V SUGIRTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the dismissal order passed in O.P.No.2718 of 2009 filed for divorce by the husband, who is the appellant herein.

(2.) The gist of the petition is that, the petitioner/Mr.J.V.Jonadah and the respondent/V.Sugirtha got married on 26.05.2007 according to Christian rites and customs. The matrimonial home was set up at Flat No.27/105 LIC Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Mogappair, Chennai-37 along with the mother of the petitioner. On the very first day of marriage, discord between them surfaced. The behaviour and activities of the respondent gave an impression to the petitioner that the respondent had married him under some kind of compulsion and she was really not interested in the marriage. The nuptial night was ordinary, the respondent did not cooperate for conjugate. For days to come, whenever he attempted to make physical contact with the respondent, she not only refused but also insulted the petitioner. The marriage was never consummated, the respondent is not inclined to have sexual life with her partner. The respondent had all complaints against the petitioner including affair with girls whom he was in friendly terms in connection with his profession. She started spying the petitioner to know to whom he is speaking in the office. She used to frequently call his colleagues and enquiry about him. She wrote a letter threatening to commit suicide and put the blame on the petitioner and his family members. Later, a false criminal complaint alleging dowry harassment was lodged by the respondent's father forcing the petitioner and his family members unnecessary harassment. The behaviour of the respondent has caused unbearable torture and humiliation leading to breakdown of marriage. Hence, seek divorce on the ground of willful refusal to consummate and cruelty.

(3.) The respondent in her counter has contented that, the address given in the petition as their matrimonial home is wrong. She was never compelled by her family members to marry the petitioner. The impression of the petitioner entertained about her attitude towards him is borne out of baseless misunderstanding of the petitioner. On the nuptial night, the petitioner had oral sex with her. Always he preferred the unnatural form of sex and she did co-operate with him to have oral sex. For non- consummating of marriage, she is not responsible, it was the petitioner who choose to sleep in a separate room. Because, the petitioner was interested in other women, he did not show any interest on her and consequentially spoiled her marital life. She once saw the petitioner lying with his sister-in-law Mrs.Hanna Franklin. In fact,the suspicious nature of the petitioner due to his fragile mind, she had been subjected to cruelty. The hardship faced by her father due to demand of dowry by the petitioner and his family member led to lodging complaint before the All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam. The petitioner left the matrimonial home in December 2008 and absconded. The respondent was forced to take care of herself all alone in a portion of the premises taken on rent by the petitioner's aunt. When she was forced to vacate that portion, by the petitioner's family members, she sought the intervention of the All Women Police, Thirumangalam to secure her residential right. Since the averments made in the petition are false, for want of cause of action the petition deserves to be dismissed.