KRISHNARAJ Vs. SATHYAPRIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the order dated 25.10.2016 passed in H.M.O.P. No. 660 of 2014 on the file of Family Court, Erode. By the order dated 25.10.2016, the Family Court dismissed HMOP No. 660 of 2014 filed by the appellant for dissolution of the marriage solemnised between him and the respondent on 06.05.1997.

(2.) The appellant has filed HMOP No. 660 of 2014 under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of The Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage solemnised between him and the respondent on the ground of cruelty. It was stated therein by the appellant that on 06.05.1997, the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnised at Sakthi Vinayakar Koil, Chithode, Erode District as per Hindu rites and customs in the midst of friends, family members and relatives of both sides. Subsequently, on 11.06.1997, the marriage was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Erode. According to the appellant, soon after the marriage, the respondent had stated that she married him not on her own accord but due to the compulsion of her parents. Such a statement of the respondent, according to the appellant, had shocked and upset him. However, the appellant convinced the respondent and lived with her in the hope that she will understand the true sense of the marriage by passage of time. Due to the wedlock, the respondent gave birth to a female child named as Devadarshini. It is also the grievance of the appellant that the respondent never gave respect to him and his parents, she was always quarrelsome and refused to discharge her matrimonial obligations. The respondent also suspected the character of the appellant and checked each and every one of his activities. During the year 2003, at the instigation of the respondent, the appellant had set up a separate residence at Erode and lived there. Even after shifting to the separate residence, the respondent did not behave properly. She quarrelled with the neighbours and indulged in unnecessary fight with them. In the year 2006, the aunt of the appellant and her daughter visited their home but the respondent suspected as if the appellant is having an affair with the daughter of the aunt. Even the daughter of the aunt understood the suspicious nature of the respondent and openly uttered that she has nothing to do with the appellant and their relationship is mature and open. Inspite of the same, when the appellant went to Gobichettipalayam to see his parents, the respondent suspected as if he is going to meet his aunt's daughter. The respondent always checked the mobile phone of the appellant to see whether there is any new number from which calls have been received. On 08.11.2013, the father of the appellant died and even on that day she quarrelled with him and his relatives and created an ugly scene. The brother of the appellant by name Balamurugan is a deaf and dumb person and he is a dependant of the appellant. However, when he came to see the appellant and his widowed mother, the respondent did not permit him in the house and therefore, the appellant's deaf and dumb brother is living alone without any one to support him. Above all, the respondent wilfully refused to cohabit with him and thereby he was subjected to untold mental agony and hardship. The respondent made it clear that she was not happy with the appellant and that she did not want to live with him. Thus, the respondent wilfully denied conjugal bliss to the appellant and thereby he was subjected to matrimonial cruelty. On 18.06.2014, the respondent wilfully quarrelled with the appellant and deserted his matrimonial company. Now, the appellant is living with his mother at Nesianur. On 24.06.2014, a meeting was convened among the elders of both sides and even thereafter, the respondent refused to live with him. All the efforts made by the appellant to bring the respondent back to the matrimonial home failed. Therefore, the appellant has filed the Original Petition for dissolution of the marriage.

(3.) On notice, the respondent along with the minor female child Devadarshini, filed M.C. No. 18 of 2015 before the Family Court, Erode contending that the respondent studied upto Higher Secondary Plus two and was employed in a company called Lakhotia Computer Centre. It was also stated that the father of the respondent deserted her mother and she was nurtured by her grand mother. It was also stated that after such desertion by her father, her mother had married one Moorthy. The appellant got acquainted with the respondent when he was working in the above said Computer Centre and thereafter, the appellant expressed his intention to marry her. However, the respondent wanted the appellant to wait for some time since her elder sister was yet to be given in marriage. Inspite of the same, due to the insistence of the appellant, the respondent went to the Sub-Registrar Office, where the appellant, by furnishing false documents as to the solemnisation of marriage, got a certificate as if the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 11.06.1997. Subsequently, the appellant insisted the grand mother of the respondent to arrange for their marriage but when it was refused and the appellant was requested to wait for some time till the respondent's elder sister is given in marriage, he threatened to disclose the registration of their marriage on 11.06.1997 to every one. Therefore, the respondent requested her grandmother to give her consent to her marriage with the appellant and accordingly, their marriage was solemnised on 24.08.1998 at Vinayagar Temple, Kooduthurai, Bhavani Taluk. Since no one attended their marriage on 24.08.1998, their marriage was solemnised by following the customs and rites on 04.09.1998 at Marudhamalai Murugan Temple, which was attended by their relatives and friends, This was followed by a marriage reception on 06.09.1998 at G.K.P. Marriage Hall, Gopichettipalayam. Thereafter, the appellant and the respondent commenced their matrimonial journey at the house of the appellant. Due to the wedlock, on 09.06.1999, a female child was born. After the birth of the child, the appellant ignored the respondent for one reason or the other. When the respondent questioned the same, the appellant informed her that she was not the apt match for him. In this context, there was matrimonial quarrel which emanated between the appellant and the respondent. At this stage, the respondent had seen some text messages received by the appellant in his mobile phone from one Lakshmi Priya, a relative of the appellant. When the respondent contacted the said Lakshmi Priya, she informed her that it was the appellant who forced and compelled her to marry him, but she refused. When this was questioned by the respondent, the appellant harassed and abused her. On 08.11.2013, the father of the appellant died. After the death of his father, the appellant had developed his contact with the above said Lakshmi Priya and totally ignored the respondent in all respects. The appellant failed to maintain her and the minor child by providing the basic comforts and necessities. There were occasion when the appellant physically assaulted the respondent for trivial reasons. The appellant stayed out of the matrimonial home for an indefinite period whereby the respondent was made to struggle to maintain the family without any financial resource. At this stage, the respondent received a notice in FCOP No. 660 of 2014 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. According to the respondent, it was she, who was subjected to cruelty by the appellant and the Original Petition has been filed with false and untenable averments. It was further stated that the respondent is always ready and willing to live with the appellant, but it was the appellant who is neglecting the respondent and the minor child. It was further stated that with the salary received by her, it was difficult to maintain herself and the minor child and that she is not resourceful enough to meet the basic needs. On the other hand, the appellant is running a Computer Service Centre in the name of "Modern Computers" and earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month, besides he is having immovable property worth about Rs.20 lakhs. Therefore, the respondent prayed for a direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to her for her maintenance and Rs.20,000/- for maintenance of the minor child.