K.B. SUKANYA Vs. R. PRADEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant/wife challenging the Decree and Judgment dated 21.12.2012 passed in OP No. 1919 of 2010 on the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai. By the said Order dated 21.12.2012, the Family Court allowed the Original Petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 (1) (ia) of The Hindu Marriage Act and dissolved the marriage dated 21.01.2009 solemnised between the appellant and the respondent.

(2.) The Original Petition was filed by the respondent herein contending that he married the appellant on 21.01.2009 and such marriage was solemnised at Thirumal Thirumagal Vasantha Mahal at Padi, Chennai as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the appellant and the respondent commenced their matrimonial life in the house of the respondent at Anna Nagar, Chennai along with his parents. Due to the wedlock, a female child was born on 27.09.2009. According to the respondent, he commenced the matrimonial journey with the appellant with lot of hopes that the appellant would adequately take care of his future in a befitting manner, however, such an expectation of the respondent could not be fulfilled due to the cruel attitude of the appellant. According to the respondent, soon after the marriage, the appellant had stated that she married him only for his professional status with a view to live a parasitic life and that she has no liking towards him. By such confession of the appellant, the life of the respondent had become miserable. The appellant never realised the responsibility of a family and continued with her wayward life. Even when the appellant was pregnant, she openly uttered that she is not interested in giving birth to a child and this has caused untold mental agony to the respondent. The respondent has further stated that when he went to Shirdi along with the appellant and his parents, the appellant behaved very rudely with his parents and she was uncontrollable. However, the respondent remained a mute spectator because the appellant was pregnant by then. The respondent has also stated that even for a trivial affair, the appellant threatened the respondent that she would lodge a police complaint against him and his parents. The appellant also demanded for a separate house leaving the parents of the respondent alone, but it was refused by the respondent due to his other commitments and his desire to look after his age old parents. According to the respondent, there were frequent quarrel between him and the appellant which has made the matrimonial life a misery. The respondent also stated that the appellant was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial company of the respondent and staying for a long time with her parents and this had caused a rift in the matrimonial life. During August 2009, the appellant went to her parents house for delivery of the child and thereafter, she did not return to the matrimonial home inspite of request made by the respondent. On the other hand, the appellant demanded the respondent to come and live with her in her parents house. By virtue of the adamant attitude of the appellant and due to difference of opinion between the spouses, there was an irretrievable breakage of the matrimonial life. The respondent therefore filed the Original Petition for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty.

(3.) Repudiating the averments contained in the Original Petition, the appellant has filed a counter statement before the Family Court in which she contended that the entire allegations, based on which the original petition was filed by the respondent, are concocted and without any basis.. The appellant never intended to lead a parasitic life, as contended by the respondent. The appellant discharged her duties as a dutiful Hindu wife and looked after the respondent and his parents well. After the birth of the female child on 27.09.2009, the respondent came to the house of her parents and met the appellant and the minor child twice. Thereafter, the respondent did not turn up and the appellant was waiting to hear from the respondent as she wanted to leave her parents house and return to her matrimonial home, but the respondent neither contacted her nor came to her parents house to take her and the minor child to the matrimonial home. Therefore, during the first week of June 2010, the appellant went to the matrimonial home to meet the respondent, but the respondent did not even permit the appellant to step inside the house. Rather, the respondent, through the window, served a copy of the Original Petition filed by him before the Family Court and told that he would meet the appellant in the Family Court. The allegation that the appellant behaved rudely and wildly during their trip to Shirdi is an utter falsehood as the appellant never accompanied the respondent and his parents during the visit to Shirdi when she was pregnant. According to the appellant, she never demanded that the respondent had to set up a separate residence, as alleged by the respondent in the Original Petition filed before the Family Court. In fact, the respondent subjected her to matrimonial cruelty and there were occasion when the appellant was physically assaulted by the respondent, but she never disclosed it to any one with an intention to maintain matrimonial decency. In any event, according to the appellant, the averments contained in the Original Petition are bald and vague and they do not constitute 'cruelty' warranting the Family Court to dissolve the marriage between the spouse. The appellant therefore prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition.