P.MURUGAN Vs. S.DEEPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/husband, who is aggrieved by the fair and decretal order dated 03.06.2011 made in C.M.A.No.21/2010 on the file of Principal District Court, Namakkal confirming the fair and decretal order dated 06.02.2009 made in H.M.O.P.No.243/2004 on the file of the Sub-Court Namakkal has filed the present appeal by raising various grounds.

(2.) The appellant had submitted that the Lower Appellate Court ought to have allowed the appeal on the sole ground that the respondent/wife on her own volition deserted the apellant without any justifiable cause and the said act of the wife, who has not returned to the matrimonial house after the birth of child has not been considered. The lower Court ought to have seen that the child was born on 05.02.2001 from that day, the respondent/wife without any reasonable cause living with her parents and had no interest to continue the relationship and the respondent without any valid reasons, had left the house, also stated that the husband had prevented her from coming to the matrimonial house was not considered. No cruelty has been alleged against the appellant and the respondent has not given any reason for her desertion from the husband and the respondent had not allowed the husband to see his minor son, which amounted to mental cruelty. As they are living apart for a long period and this would indicate that there is a irretrievable break-down of marriage and decree of divorce ought to have been granted.

(3.) The case of the appellant is that he got married to the respondent on 08.03.2000 at Arulmigu Kabilarmalai Murugan Koil, paramathi Velur, Annooramman Thirmana Mandapam, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. The child was born on 05.02.2001 and named as Kavinkumar. The appellant further submits that the wife was not interested in the marriage and she has no respect for the mother of the appellant and not willing to live with him. Infact, she has tendency to live only along with her parents. The respondent/wife used pickup quarrel with the appellant and his mother for silly reasons. Initially the respondent/wife did not want to bear the pregnancy and wanted to abort the same, only on the compulsion of the husband, she had continued pregnancy and on 03.11.2000, the parents of the respondent had conducted Valaikaapu function and took her to their house and on the same day she was sent back to the petitioner's house. After two or three days, she was taken back to her parents house and while going, she has taken away all her belongings namely Jewels, dresses and other articles stating that she will not return to the matrimonial house after the birth of the child. When the husband went to her house for seeing her, she did not allow him to visit her anymore and she had stated that if the appellant visits, she would kill herself.