S . MEENAKSHI Vs. S. GOPINATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the Order dated 17.11.2016 passed in HMOP No. 162 of 2014 on the file of Family Court, Erode. By the said order dated 17.11.2016, the Family Court allowed HMOP No. 162 of 2014 filed by the respondent herein under section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

(2.) According to the respondent, his marriage with the appellant was solemnised on 18.01.2013 at Marudeswaran Temple, Kodumudi as per Hindu rites and customs and thereafter, a marriage reception was commemorated on 23.01.2013 at his house situated in Pudhukallivalasu, Nadar Medu, Erode District. It is the contention of the respondent that even prior to the marriage, the respondent and appellant loved each other and with the consent and permission of the parents of both sides, their marriage was held on 18.01.2013. According to the respondent, the marriage life was blissful and happier for two months and due to the wedlock, the appellant become pregnant. While so, on 06.03.2013, due to a trivial matrimonial dispute, a wordy quarrel erupted between him and the appellant. This dispute was precipitated by the appellant by informing her mother over mobile phone and she in turn, along with her relatives, gave a complaint on 07.03.2013 to the All Women Police Station, Erode, which was registered under CSR No. 68 of 2013. On the basis of such complaint, the respondent and the appellant were called upon for an enquiry and after concluding the enquiry, the police officials advised the appellant to live with the respondent peacefully. Notwithstanding such advise given by the police officials, the appellant had untied the sacred thali and thrown it away and also informed that she will abort the pregnancy. By saying so, the appellant accompanied her parents and went to her parent's house. Thereafter, the respondent went to the parents house of the appellant, met her and attempted to pacify her, but she was reluctant to join the matrimonial company of the respondent. According to the respondent, even the parents of the appellant were not inclined to give any advise to their daughter to send her to the matrimonial home. It is in those circumstances, the respondent has filed the instant Original Petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) Repudiating the averments made in the Original Petition in HMOP No. 97 of 2013 filed by the respondent, the appellant has filed a counter statement, contending inter alia that she never fell in love with the respondent, there was no solemnisation of marriage between her and the respondent on 18.01.2013, as alleged. Similarly, the allegation that the marriage was followed by a reception on 23.01.2013 at the house of the respondent was also false and no such marriage reception had taken place. According to the appellant, at the time of the so-called marriage, she was only 19 years old and taking advantage of her young age, the respondent had created some records to make it appear as if he married the appellant. The father of the respondent is working as Superintendent in Tamil Nadu Health Services and her mother is working as Head Clerk in Judicial Department. The father and mother of the respondent would attend their respective work and would return home only in the night. Taking advantage of the loneliness of the appellant, the respondent lured her and created some records to make it appear as if he married the appellant. When the appellant was alone in her home, the respondent threatened her to accompany him and if she failed to do so, he threatened that he will throw acid on her face. There was no tying of thali or there was exchange of garlands. No marriage had taken place as recognised by law and the alleged marriage reception did not take place. The appellant, during the relevant period, was pursuing her B.E., degree in Vivekanandha Engineering College Tiruchengode. The allegation that the appellant was pregnant due to the wedlock with the respondent is an utter false. There was no cohabitation between her and the respondent, as alleged. The appellant and the respondent never lived as husband and wife in the house of the respondent. The respondent had never given any complaint to the police authorities on 07.03.2013 on account of the wordy quarrel said to have emanated between her and the respondent during the alleged matrimonial relationship. The allegation that the appellant untied the sacred thali and had thrown it away and also threatened to abort the pregnancy is nothing but a falsehood. The respondent is a stranger to the appellant and her family. The respondent came to the house of the appellant when she was alone and asked her to accompany him and on her refusal threatened to murder her. Further, he had also threatened that he will commit suicide and would throw the blame on her. Therefore, only by threat, coercion and misrepresentation, the appellant was made to accompany the respondent. In effect, the appellant totally denied having married the respondent and that there was no relationship of wife and husband between them. The appellant therefore prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition for restitution of conjugal rights.