MAHIPAL H JAIN Vs. VEENA M JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has come forward with this appeal questioning the correctness of the Order dated 07.01.2014 passed in I.A. No. 2250 of 2012 in O.P. No. 2616 of 2012 on the file of II Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai. By the said order dated 07.01.2014, the Family Court directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent and the minor female child towards interim maintenance from 27.08.2012 till the disposal of the Original Petition and another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards one time litigation expenses.

(2.) The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 27.04.2008 at Kalu Malu Bhavan, Venkatachala Mudali Street, Choolai, Chennai - 600 012 as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was arranged between the appellant and the respondent by the elders of both sides. After the marriage, the appellant and the respondent resided at the house of the appellant as a joint family. The matrimonial life between the appellant and the respondent was quite happy and that the appellant provided all comforts and luxuries to the respondent befitting his status. As the respondent was pregnant, in accordance with the prevailing custom, she was sent to her parents house for delivery of the child during July 2009 and on 22.10.2009, the respondent gave birth to a female child by name Yati. According to the appellant, after delivery of the female child, the respondent came back to the matrimonial home along with the female child during January 2010. However, after birth of the female child, the attitude and behaviour of the respondent had dramatically changed and the respondent did not allow the appellant to touch her or the female child and the appellant was forced to sleep separately. According to the appellant, the respondent started quarrelling with the appellant even for a trivial affair and that she insisted upon security and safety of herself and the new born child. According to the appellant, he suffered financial loss in the business carried on along with his father and that the respondent was under the impression that the appellant could not take care of her and the new born child financially. Even though the appellant assured the respondent that her interest will be protected, the respondent refused to heed to such assurances and started making false allegations against the appellant and his father by stating that they are worthless. The appellant and his family were shocked to note such a discourteous behaviour on the part of the respondent. In fact, the parents of the appellant have also given an option to take a separate house. However, by citing the lack of financial security for herself and the new born child, the respondent left the matrimonial home during June 2010 by stating that her parents have asked her to come back and she will lead a peaceful life in her parents house. The best efforts taken by the appellant to meet the respondent on the eve of marriage anniversary and on the birth date of the minor child resulted in humiliation at the hands of the respondent and her parents. According to the appellant, he was always ready and willing to live with the respondent and the efforts taken by him to rejoin the respondent went in vain. Therefore, he has filed O.P. No. 2616 of 2012 under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) The Original Petition was resisted by the respondent by filing a counter affidavit in which it was contended that the appellant and his father were in good financial capacity by running business, however, the appellant did not spend a single rupee during her pregnancy. Even for the medical check during her pregnancy, amount was spent only by the father of the respondent. According to the respondent, during her pregnancy, the mother of the appellant insisted her to do all house hold job and the respondent was made to attend Poojas in the Jain temple nearby and forced to have food only there and return home. Thus, the respondent was made to go to the temple in the morning and afterhoon hours also on several days. The respondent was specifically informed to have breakfast only after the morning pooja and similarly told to have lunch after the pooja in the temple, thereby she was subjected to harassment and humiliation. According to the respondent, after the birth of the child, she came back to the matrimonial home where the new born child was given massage with a baby oil which caused white patches in the body of the child. It is further complained in the counter affidavit that even for vaccinations of the new born child, the appellant did not pay any money and it was the father of the respondent who had borne all the medical expenses. According to the respondent, the entire earnings in the family business were maintained only by the father of the appellant and the appellant did not provide any financial support to her. Above all, the appellant and his family members demanded gold gifts for performance of marriage of the sisters of the appellant and when such demand could not be fulfilled by the parents of the respondent, the respondent was treated badly by the appellant and his parents. The respondent was subjected to humiliation and harassment during her stay in the matrimonial home. Due to matrimonial cruelty inflicted on her, the respondent went to her parents house for mental peace on 23.07.2010 but thereafter, the appellant did not call the respondent to join him in the matrimonial home.