M MADAN MOHAN Vs. K R RAJALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant/husband aggrieved by the Order of dismissal dated 17.08.2017, dismissing the Original Petition No. 3459 of 2011 filed by him for dissolving the marriage solemnised between him and the respondent on 10.03.2006, on the ground of cruelty.

(2.) (I) It is the case of the appellant, in OP No. 3459 of 2011 filed by him before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, that he married the respondent on 10.03.2006 and the marriage was solemnised at S.B. Thirumana Mandapam at Anna Nagar East, Chennai, as per Hindu rites and customs. It is his case that even prior to the marriage, he got acquainted with the respondent through a common friend, who fell in love with a girl and the respondent happened to be her friend. The friend of the appellant and the friend of the respondent, who loved each other, got married at Anna Nagar. In this context, the appellant and the respondent happened to meet each other frequently and this had developed into an intimacy. According to the appellant, the respondent informed him that she passed B.C.A. degree and was living with her brother at Anna Nagar. The respondent further represented that she is working as a Customer Support Executive at Citibank and her parents were staying at Trichy. The appellant further stated that the respondent informed him that her brother is working in a private company at Chennai.

(3.) (I)Repudiating the averments made by the appellant in the original petition, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending interalia that she knew the appellant many months before their marriage on 10.02006. The respondent admitted that she fell in love with the appellant. As the appellant insisted for a physical relationship before marriage, with a promise to marry her, she became pregnant. Prior to the marriage, the respondent did not suppress anything to the appellant especially when the appellant came and stayed with the respondent in her house at Anna Nagar. Even regarding her age, she did not lie as alleged. As she fell in love with the appellant and she became pregnant before marriage, she apprehended that if her real age is made known, the appellant may leave her in the lurch after her pregnancy. After marriage, on 24.05.2007, a female child was born due to the wedlock between the appellant and the respondent. In any event, after the marriage and birth of the child, raising the issue relating to the age of the respondent is insignificant and it did not call for any consideration by the Court. The fact remains that the appellant and his family members were disclosed about the real age of the respondent even at the first family meeting. At that time, the family of the appellant asked the respondent to produce her birth certificate under the guise that it is required for availing certain benefits in the company where the appellant is employed. As the respondent was frightened about the small mistake she had made, she produced the birth certificate with a small change in the birth year for which she regrets very much. After marriage, the respondent also apologized to the appellant and his family members countless times about this aspect. The appellant knew that the respondent is older than him before the marriage, however, he is raising this issue in this Original Petition to wreck vengeance. The fact remains that the respondent showered love and affection towards the appellant. In fact, on seeing a Television commercial, the appellant wanted the respondent to buy him a RADO watch which she purchased for the appellant at a cost of Rs. 23,000/-. The respondent lovingly bought that watch for the appellant which stand testimony to the love and affection she had towards the appellant. This is being pointed out to show the abundant love and affection the respondent had towards the appellant.