The Appellant claims that he has been put through intolerable mental agony and can numberlonger companytinue to be married to the Respondent.
2 lakhs per month as maintenance.
The Impugned Judgment dismissed the divorce petition filed by the Appellant.
She subsequently filed a petition seeking restitution of companyjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, praying that the Appellant be directed to take her back to her companyjugal home, which she pleaded is in the U.S. She alleged that her husband is living a wayward life, that her father in law misbehaved with her, and that her parents in law were negligent with her infant child and asked her to leave the house when she questioned them about this.
She also filed a maintenance petition seeking Rs.
3 The case put forward by the Appellant is that the Respondent was verbally abusive she would insult his family she would threaten to lodge false police companyplaints and she would threaten to companymit suicide placing the blame on the Appellant and his family.
After she left for her parental home in June 2006, the Appellant attempted to bring her back to her matrimonial home but she refused.
Her allegation that the father of the Appellant started misbehaving with her and went to the extent of pulling her hands was also found to be false.
She abused the Appellant and his family in the presence of his brother and threatened to file a police companyplaint.
25,000 per month.
5 The Trial Court heard all three petitions together and examined the evidence submitted by the parties at length.
Eventually the Appellants sister was companystrained to stay at a Lodge.
Further, the allegation that he was having an affair was number accepted, as it was unbelievable that the Respondent had previously number told anyone about Solai and further that it never came up du ring the attempted companypromise between the families of the two parties.
She claimed that he took her to Solais house that evening and then wanted to go back at night, which is why she called the police.
2 The Appellant and the Respondent were married on 28.6.2004 and moved to the U.S. on 9.7.2004.
Furthermore, the Appellant has deposed that when his brother came to the S. to study, he also initially stayed at the Appellants house.
It was held that the evidence and the submissions of the Respondent indicate that she was unwilling to live in the Appellants house in Chennai, and that she wanted him to leave his family in India and live in the U.S. with her.
She has pleaded that she returned to Chennai with her child from March to April 2007, that the divorce petition was companypletely unexpected and was the result of a misunderstanding between her family and that of the Appellant.
By the time they brought him back, he was unconscious due to starvation.
The Respondent also alleged that while she was living with the Appellants family, his parents took the child who was only three months old away for six hours.
The Respondent claimed that the incident took place because the Appellant was having an affair with a woman named Solai.
When the Respondent questioned them about this, they asked her to leave the house with the child, even though it was late in the night.
4 The Respondent denied these allegations and claimed that she and the Appellant lived happily in the U.S., and she only went to her parental home in June 2006 for her child to be born there.
The Appellant was given a warning by the Police.
They visited Chennai in October 2005 and June 2006.
An order of dissolution of marriage was passed and maintenance was fixed at Rs.
The Trial Court also took into companysideration the voice mails and emails from the Respondent to the Appellant, which were number treated as the main evidence but as evidence intended to substantiate the oral evidence.
The Appellant subsequently filed for divorce under Section 13 1 ia of the Hindu Marriage Act on 30.4.2007.
The Respondent claimed that the dispute was because her sister in law tried to make her join her diamond business, which she did number want to do.
In light of these circumstances, it was found that the Respondent is number entitled to companyjugal rights.
The Appellant has deposed that when his sister came to the U.S., she initially stayed with him and the Respondent.
It is pertinent to numbere that the Appellant had lost his job in the U.S. and was unemployed and companysequently had to set up residence in Chennai.
The Appellant has deposed that he was forced to make his brother stay elsewhere.
However, it is in evidence that the Respondent called the Appellant at work alleging that his brother was knocking on her door, thus implying that he was behaving in an untoward manner.
The Respondent claimed that after having the child, she came to live with the Appellant, which the Appellant denied.
However, the Respondent did number like having her in the house, so she locked the Respondent and his sister out of the house, was abusive towards them and told them that they belonged to a prostitute family.
The Trial Court has justifiably highlighted that summoning the police was serious because the Appellant was in a foreign companyntry and didnt know the laws and procedure.
In a subsequent event, the Appellant informed the Respondent that his parents would be companying to the U.S. The Respondent was verbally and physically abusive, and called the police alleging domestic violence.
VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J. 1 These Appeals assail the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench at Madurai, delivered on 13.3.2013, setting aside the Judgment dated 25.8.2011 of the Trial Court.
During the latter visit, the Respondent was three months pregnant and left for her parental home in Madurai on 10.6.2006 where she gave birth to a male child on 5.12.2006.
