K UMASANKAR Vs. SURYAKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Miscellaneous Appeal being partly aggrieved by the fair and decreetal order of the Principal Family Court Judge, Chennai F.C.O.P.No.1028 of 1997 dated 30-12-2002 in so far as it orders dismissing the divorce petition of the appellant.) Prabha Sridevan, J.The appellant is the husband whose petition for divorce was dismissed by the Family Court. The facts in brief:The parties were married on 03-08-1995. It was an arranged marriage. It was understood that the husband was living in a joint family. The wife was a single child and both parties understood that she would cope up with the requirements of living in a joint family. No pecuniary demands were made by the husband's side on the wife's parents. The parents of the husband assured the wife and her parents that she would live just as she lived with here parents. His hope for a happy married life were shattered when even on the first night she suggested that they should live independently since she would not be able to cope in a joint family. From that date, the respondent's wife adopted various tactics to pressurise the appellant's husband to set up a house separately. The respondent was working in Shriram Chits Company. She was asked to resign her job, but she did not agree. She also declared that the family members of her husband were far lower in status compared to her. She abused her husband and his family with wounding words. The frequent visits by her parents did not improve the situation. Frequently, she would leave home without informing him and go to her parent's house and repeatedly he had to go and persuade her to return. There was mental agony and frustration. In the meantime, she conceived a child. Again on the pretext of taking rest, she went to her parent's home. There was total non-cooperation by her in the joint family. She kept the appellant always on tenterhooks. She also spread rumours amongst community that the appellant and his family members were all drunkards and had lost their property because of gambling at races and other bad habits. This lowered their image in the community. These rumours were spread to alienate the appellant from his family. The appellant suffered enormously because of all this. It was increasingly becoming impossible to persuade the respondent to behave amicably with the members of his family. She created scenes at home attracting the attention of their neighbours and tarnished their respect in the community. Her parents also confronted his parents and demanded that a separate home should be set up. This was in December 1996. They also threatened that they would lodge complaints to the police. It was her practice to save her income and to squander his money. He tried to encourage her to develop a saving habit by purchasing UTI Units and other deposits. She slowly and systematically moved all her belongings and all her valuable jewellery and even her certificates. On 16-01-1997, she left the marital home declaring that she will not return unless he submitted to her dictates and demands. Even the birth of the child did not improve the situation. When his father died, he hoped it would pave the way for unity. But she never participated in the last rites and left abruptly. Losing all hopes of union a legal notice was sent on 02-07-1997 and a petition was filed under Section 13(1)(1(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) IN response, the wife denied all the averments. According to her, she assured full co-operation and being the only daughter, she was eager to live with the joint family. She was not asked to stop working. On the contrary, her husband and his mother insisted that in the present economic conditions, a second income was necessary. On the first night, what really happened was that the husband came intoxicated and she could not bear the alcoholic smell. When she informed this to her in laws they merely brushed it aside saying that such habits are common. It is true that she is working in Shri Ram Chits Company. But it is not true that they asked her to stop working. Whenever it was the pay day, the husband would punctually come to her office premises under the mild influence of alcohol to collect the salary. The joint family did not break up because of her. They took up another residence only because the landlord demanded huge advance. The husband would go home late and also drunk. She was very disappointed by this. She never spread rumours about his family but it is an admitted truth that the male members of the husband's joint family ruin the entire wealth in unpalatable habits. Her parents never visited them frequently. IN fact his relatives indirectly told her parents that the house in their name would be transferred to her. The appellant often came late and drunk and no one interfered with the wounding comments made by the mother-in-law. She tried to be pleasant and ignored all this. It is only for health reasons that she stayed in her parent's house and not for any other reasons. During her Seemantham celebrations, her relatives were not properly attended to. She was forced to resign her job on 02-07-1996. She was subjected to enormous suffering. She lived a life of suffocation. She was asked to go to her parent's house for getting money for paying the rent. When she refused, she was ill-treated more. Thereafter, he and his parents started to coerce her that if she wanted her parents to visit her, the immovable property should be transferred to her name. He mercilessly and without conscience threatened her that if she failed to do so he may even do away with her. It is not correct to state that she is always luxurious and spending of the money. It was not correct to state that she reluctantly came to her father-in-law's last rites. She rushed to attend the last rites. But she was not allowed to participate. The harassment and torture continued and finally on 16-01-1997 she was forced to leave the house. ON 23-01-1997, under the influence of alcohol, he went to her house and demanded the transfer of title of the property. She only prayed that he should set up a separate house away from his other relatives and take his time for his wife, daughter and mother. Therefore, the petition for divorce must be dismissed as devoid of merits.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the allegations in the counter were made only in response to the averments in the petition where she was branded as a stubborn arrogant woman. She also submitted that when the woman wanted to reunite with her husband, her only recourse would be to approach the community elders and pray for reunion. THE learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand that no acts of cruelty was made out and the judgment required no interference.