JAYAKRLSHNA Vs. SUREKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a petition (O.P.No. 10 of 1990) filed by the appellant herein in the Court of the Principal Subordinate judge, Visakapatnarn, for passing a decree annuling the marriage between him and the respondent, or in the alternative to pass a decree for dissolving the marriage. 7 he petition having been dismissed, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-husband. The appellant married the respondent on 26-11-1986 at Berhwnpur (Orissa State). It is the case of the appellant that he did not voluntarily agree for the marriage, and the consent was obtained by force as the parents of the appellant threatened to commit suicide if the alliance was not fixed. It is his further case that even the nuptial night ended with lot of unhappiness and frustration. The appellant states that he made it clear to the respondent-wife in the beginning itself that he was totally opposed to the idea of marriage with her and that he was not getting emotional reaction on seeing her. After few days, the appellant submits that he returned to Visakhapatnam, at which place he is employed in the Port Trust. In March, 1987 the respondent was brought to Visakhapatnam by her relations, and they lived for about six months, but according to the appellant, his marital life was not happy. The appellant also alleged in the petition that a neighbour of his in-laws at Berhampur came to the house of the appellant some time in July, 1987, abused him in filthy language, and thereafter she went to his office and informed one and all that the appellant was having intimacy with several girls and that he was ill-treating his wife. The appellant then submits that he tried to convince the respondent that there was no point in staying at Visakhapatnam and the marriage broke down beyond repair and it was desirable to have a divorce with mutual consent. He then states that the respondent initially agreed, and later declined to carry out the promise. He also alleges that on 18-4-1988, the respondent along with her brothers threatened him with dire consequences. According to the appellant from April, 1988 onwards, they never lived together as husband and wife after the respondent left Visakhapatnam sometime in 1988.

(2.) The respondent-wife in her counter admitted the fact that they last resided together in April, 1988. While denying the averments in the petition she alleged that the appellant kept a concubine and neglected her, even though she tried for a re-union. She also alleged that there was a demand of dowry for purchase of a car. She further alleged that the gold, silver and steel articles and furniture worth Rs. 50,000/- were in possession of the appellant, which were given to her in her marriage.

(3.) In the additional counter, the respondent alleged that "the appellant has got sex relations with one M.V. Bharathi, which was lately known to the respondent, and was objected". Itwas further alleged that when she went to the house of the appellant atVisakhapatnam one night, she was not al lowed to stay there and she saw Bharathi staying there.