SUNIL JOSEPH Vs. MARRY RUTH JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVERYONE has a wound to heal, some problems, difficulties and dreams. He wants to be consoled so the more dissatisfied he is with his life the better it is actually. The appellant husband has been thoroughly dissatisfied with his life right from the day he entered into marriage with the respondent. When his wounds were not healed he filed a petition under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act,1954 in the Family Court Ajmer against the respondent wife. Learned Family Court did not agree with the contentions of appellant husband and dismissed the petition vide judgment and decree dated February 28, 2001. Hence this appeal.

(2.) IN the petition the appellant husband averred that his marriage with the respondent wife took place on May 27, 1996 as per customs and usage of the Christianity at Jodhpur and out of the wedlock a son Akshay was born on April 19, 1997. After the marriage both resided at Ajmer. The behaviour of respondent wife towards the appellant husband had been quarrelsome. She used to quarrel on petty matters and hurled filthy words on the appellant and his mother. She was unwilling to cohabit and wished to reside with her parents at Jodhpur. It was further pleaded that on November 14, 1997 a petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed but it was disposed of on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and on May 29, 1998 the appellant husband brought respondent wife from Jodhpur, but the respondent wife left the house of appellant husband along with her son, without the consent of appellant husband. Therefore the appellant filed a petition on August 29, 1998 for dissolution of marriage, but it again culminated into a compromise on June 1, 1999 since the respondent wife had agreed to return to her wedded home. IN order to restore peace, the appellant husband resided separately with the respondent wife, leaving his aged mother alone but the respondent wife again left for Jodhpur on June 30, 1999 without the consent of appellant husband. She even did not turn up when the grand father of appellant expired on September 16, 1996. She also did not pay any heed to the request of appellant to come to Ajmer at the time of illness of father of appellant. On February 2, 1997 when father of appellant expired the respondent did not come to Ajmer despite knowledge of the sad demise. She neither attended the marriage of appellant's real sister nor attended the last rites of appellant's grandmother. All those incidents collectively caused mental cruelty. The appellant therefore prayed for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

(3.) IT is next contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the relationship between the appellant and respondent had reached the degree where the co-habition was not only improbable but impossible and looking to the cruel conduct of the respondent the appellant is entitled to the decree of divorce. This submission is also devoid of any substance. Evidently two earlier petitions filed by the appellant culminated into compromise and the parties had started living together. In the facts and circumstances of this case we are not satisfied that the marriage reached to a position of irretrievability.