M. SARATHCHANDRAN Vs. M. JAYALAKSHMI SARATH CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the husband and the respondent is his wife. The appellant has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the Order dated 08.12.2010 passed in HMOP No. 2261 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, by which the HMOP No. 2261 of 2008 filed by him under section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed.

(2.) It is the case of the appellant that his marriage with the respondent was solemnised on 24.10.1969 at Virudhunagar according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the appellant and the respondent lived together happily as husband and wife for about 12 years at Tiruchirapalli and 17 years at Ahmed Nagar, Maharashtra. In other words, the couple lived together for about 29 years peacefully and happily. Due to the wedlock between the appellant and the respondent, a male and a female child were born. It is the case of the appellant that from the date of marriage, the parents of the respondent and her family members, especially the maternal uncle of respondent, interfered with each and every one of their family affairs unnecessarily which ruined the matrimonial life between him and the respondent. Even though the appellant advised the respondent to limit herself from divulging the family affairs that had been taking place in the matrimonial home to her parents and relatives, she did not desist herself from interacting with her family members about the incidents that are taking place in the matrimonial home. According to the appellant, during the course of his new employment he took up at Ahmed Nagar, Maharashtra, the respondent and his children accompanied him to Ahmed Nagar. However, in the year 2000, the appellant was compelled to leave his wife and children at Chennai for the sake of education of his children by temporarily setting up a separate house for the stay of his wife and children. While so, during August 2000, the father of the respondent died and therefore, the respondent accompanied her mother along with the children and stayed with her mother. During such stay, the appellant was not permitted to meet the respondent or the children for the reasons best known to respondent. The appellant had taken several steps to meet the respondent and the children but it went in vain. It is the specific grievance of the appellant that inspite of his objection and opposition, his daughter was given in marriage to a groom by the respondent and her mother and ultimately his daughter's matrimonial life came to an end by way of decree of divorce passed by the competent Family Court. In any event, the respondent is residing separately from 07.03.2010 along with her mother and the children. In fact, the respondent insisted the appellant to resign his job at Ahmed Nagar, Maharashtra and to come down to Chennai permanently. Accordingly, the appellant also resigned his job but inspite of the same, the respondent failed and neglected to join the appellant. According to the appellant, the desertion of the respondent from the matrimonial company of the appellant is without any just and sufficient cause. The appellant was 62 years at the time instituting the Original Petition. According to the appellant, at such an advanced age, he needed the care and support of the respondent and the children. The appellant had sent a notice dated 16.03.2001 calling upon the respondent to come and join him in the matrimonial home. On receipt of the notice dated 16.03.2001, a reply notice was sent on 23.04.2001 containing false and incorrect averments. Therefore, the appellant has filed the petition under section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) Opposing the Original Petition filed by the appellant, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 24.10.1969 in Subramaniya Swamy Devasthana Thirumana Mandapam, Virudhunagar, according to Hindu rites and customs. Both the appellant and the respondent resided together for 29 years jointly, however, the matrimonial life was not happy and that the respondent was subjected to sheer harassment by the appellant. According to the respondent, the appellant ill-treated her and her family members and it led to several quarrel between them. The appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from the parents of the respondent besides he had withheld with him 50 sovereigns of gold jewels presented to the respondent at the time of marriage. The desertion of the respondent from the matrimonial company of the appellant was not voluntary, rather, the respondent was made to part his company due to sheer harassment, illtreatment and demand for money. The appellant never attempted to rejoin the respondent and it was the respondent who had taken several steps to rejoin the appellant but they went in vain. The respondent therefore prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition.