S. SENTHIL KUMAR Vs. C. SASIKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has come forward with this appeal aggrieved by the Order dated 03.05.2013 passed by the Family Court, Coimbatore in HMOP No. 327 of 2009 whereby the Family Court refused to dissolve the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent on 10.02.2008.

(2.) From the averments made in HMOP No. 327 of 2009 filed by the appellant herein, it could be seen that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 10.02.2008 as per Hindu rites and customs at Saradhambal Temple, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. On the same day, a marriage reception was conducted at Mahajana Sabha (Balija Naidu) Kalyana Mandapam Coimbatore. The marriage was arranged by the elders of the family of the appellant and the respondent. At the time of marriage, the appellant and his family offered 3 sovereigns of gold chain and half sovereign of gold for the Mangalsutra. It was further contended that either the appellant or his family members made any demand for dowry. According to the appellant, at the time of marriage, he was 33 years old and the respondent was 34 years old. It was further stated that the respondent is none other than the daughter of the appellant's maternal uncle. Further, the appellant studied only upto IX standard, on the contrary the respondent is a graduate and working in a College. According to the appellant, since his mother has promised and assured the mother of the respondent to take her daughter as his daughter-in-law, the appellant agreed for solemnisation of the marriage notwithstanding the fact that the respondent is one year older than him. It is the case of the appellant that even on the nuptial night, the respondent enquired with the appellant about the savings amount and the properties held in his name. When the appellant replied the respondent that her father (uncle of the appellant) is fully aware of the same, she insisted the appellant to disclose his income. When the appellant informed the respondent that he only has a share in the family property held by his family and he has no other property of his own, the respondent refused to have sexual intercourse with him. Similarly, two days after the marriage, when the appellant approached the respondent and expressed his desire to have sexual intercourse with her, she scolded the appellant and physically assaulted him. While so, 20 days after the marriage, the respondent suffered giddiness and fell down. This was informed to the parents of the respondent and they have taken the respondent to their home so that they could look after her and that she could get well soon. Two days thereafter, when the appellant went to the parents house of the respondent to see the respondent, the respondent openly uttered that she has no liking towards him especially when he has no separate house of his own and sought for a partition of the family properties of the appellant as a condition precedent to continue the matrimonial life with him. Thereafter, the attempts made by the appellant to meet the respondent did not fructify. There were several mediations taken place at the behest of elders of both sides for reunion. In fact, unable to resolve the matrimonial rift between the appellant and the respondent, the mother of the appellant died on 18.11.2008 and inspite of intimation having been given to the respondent, she did not attend the funeral. According to the appellant, the respondent failed and neglected to discharge her matrimonial obligations and refused conjugal relationship with him and thereby caused untold mental agony to him. According to the appellant, the respondent lived with him only for a month and even during such stay, she did not permit him to have sexual intercourse with her, thereby, he was subjected to acute matrimonial cruelty. In such circumstances, the appellant prayed for dissolving the marriage solemnised between him and the respondent on 10.02.2008.

(3.) Repudiating the averments made in the Original Petition, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the elder brother of the appellant was given in marriage to the younger sister of the respondent and they were living happily along with two children. According to the respondent, there were disputes between the appellant and his brother in connection with the family property and therefore, in order to resolve such family dispute, the mother of the appellant requested the father of the respondent to arrange the marriage between the appellant and the respondent so that, the father of the respondent, as father-in law to the appellant and his brother, will be in a position to resolve such disputes. In those circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant had studied only upto IX Standard and that the respondent is a graduate, the respondent agreed to marry the appellant. At the time of marriage, her parents have offered 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and 3 sovereigns of chain to the respondent. According to the respondent, the appellant is addicted to alcohol drinks and for which he was taking treatment even before the marriage. However, suppressing the same, the respondent was given in marriage to the appellant. The appellant used to come to the matrimonial home only at around 2 'O' clock or 3 'O' clock in the early hours of morning in an inebriated condition and when it was questioned by the respondent, she used to get abused and assaulted by the appellant. According to the respondent, the appellant and his sisters did not like the father of the respondent interfering in the family dispute and therefore, in order to keep him away from such disputes, they have subjected the respondent to untold matrimonial cruelty. The appellant and his sisters have criticised the respondent by saying that she is mentally not sound and that she requires treatment and it had caused untold hardship to the respondent. In fact, in the panchayat convened to resolve the matrimonial dispute between the appellant and the respondent, the appellant and his sisters have even abused the elders in the family. When the respondent attempted to take legal action against the appellant and his sisters for having inflicted matrimonial cruelty on her, the appellant has filed the present Petition seeking to dissolve the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent on 10.02.2008. The averments made in the Original Petition are not bonafide and they are absolutely concocted. Therefore, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition.