K SIVARENJANI Vs. A SIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the order dated 27.05.2016 passed in HMOP No. 1118 of 2010 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, the Original Petition filed by the respondent/husband for granting a decree of divorce was dismissed, instead, a decree for Judicial Separation was granted. Challenging the validity and/or correctness of the said Order passed by the Family Court, granting a decree for Judicial separation, the appellant/wife has filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. As against the very same Order, the husband/respondent has filed the Cross Objection contending that the Family Court is not justified in passing an order of Judicial Separation, instead, it ought to have granted a decree of divorce.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall, hereinafter be referred to in this appeal, as per their litigative status in HMOP No. 1118 of 2010 as Petitioner (husband) and respondent (wife).

(3.) The petitioner/husband has filed HMOP No. 1118 of 2010 before the Family Court, Coimbatore contending that the marriage between him and the respondent/wife was solemnised on 208.2009 at Sankar Mahal Thirumana Mandapam, Erode, as per Hindu rites and customs. Before the marriage, an engagement was conducted and at the time of engagement, the petitioner was working in a company called ATKINS, Bangalore and the respondent was employed in a company called Honey Well Solution, Bangalore. Subsequently, the petitioner was sent on deputation by his employer to Cochin to a company called LULU as a Project Manager. It is the specific plea of the petitioner that even before his marriage, he has clearly informed the respondent and her parents that befitting his age and educational qualification, he had lot of prospects with offer for a lucrative salary out of India and therefore, he may get employed abroad after his marriage. It was further stated that the respondent and her parents have also agreed for such a proposal made by the petitioner. However, after marriage, the respondent had unreasonably prevented the petitioner from taking up employment abroad by giving frivolous complaint to the police.