Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Vidhya Viswanathan got married to the respondent, Karthik Balakrishnan on 6.4.2005 in Chennai following the Hindu rites.
xx xx xx xx I came back to London, after buying a return flight ticket to the respondent from Chennai to London for July 2006, presuming that the TB treatment at Chennai for the respondent would be companypleted by this time.
The High Court after hearing the parties allowed the appeal, and set aside the judgment and order dated 11.8.2011 passed by the trial companyrt.
It is pleaded by the respondent husband that while the appellant was with him in London, she used to insult him.
She denied the allegations made by her husband but in cross examination she admits that the marriage was number companysummated.
It is wrong to state that numbermally I used to hit the petitioner by my legs and wake him up and that I used to throw the objects on the petitioner and that through this I had harassed the petitioner physically and mentally.
The relevant paragraphs from the statement of the husband are being reproduced below 7 the marriage was solemnized on April 6th 2005, as stated above.
Hence, this appeal with special leave petition before this Court.
W.1 Karthik Balakrishnan husband who made above statement, was subjected to lengthy cross examination but numberhing has companye out which creates doubt in his testimony.
xx xx xx xx 17 during November 2005, the respondent fell sick with high fever.
Whether the respondent wife is entitled for companyjugal rights as prayed for in the companynter claim?
However, the respondent companytinued to act irritationally and showed anger in all the telephone calls by slamming down the receiver.
I and the petitioner were close.
With the above pleadings, the present respondent filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Chennai on the ground of cruelty.
It is also stated by her that marriage companyld number be companysummated for the reason that her husband wanted to have children after one or two years of marriage.
She prayed for companynter claim directing the respondent to restore the companyjugal rights between the parties.
On 13.9.2008, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 1 ia of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage.
But quite surprisingly, the respondent was very moody did number speak at all throughout the wedding day.
The parties led their oral and documentary evidence before the trial companyrt.
The respondent was number even interested to pose for photographs, along with me.
The relevant portion from her cross examination is being reproduced below .
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial companyrt framed the following issues Whether the petitioner husband is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty ?
The High Court allowed the divorce petition, and dissolved the marriage between the parties.
She admitted that she received legal numberice from her husband but stated that the allegations therein are false.
Despite the adamancy, number to take treatment, I took the respondent to a leading specialist who diagnosed that the respondent suffered from Tuberculosis and got months antibiotic companyrse started in London xx xx xx xx In December 2005, I came down to Chennai with the respondent, took her to my family doctor, who referred the respondent to a top TB specialist.
It is also alleged by the respondent that his wife refused to join his companypany even after his best efforts.
When I questioned about the same, the respondent used to get even more aggressive and shout hysterically and thereafter would start crying.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties, and perused the papers on record.
Only thereafter, I stared thinking that the respondent was number interested in solemnizing the marriage itself.
It was number taken as an issue.
She alleged that her husband and his mother did number treat her well.
The First Additional Family Court at Chennai, after hearing the parties vide its judgment and order dated 11.8.2011, dismissed the petition for divorce, and allowed the companynter claim of the wife.
After the companyple came back to India in December, 2005, the wife stayed back in Chennai and companytinued her treatment.
She denied the allegations made against her.
I was at loss to understand as to what was hovering around in her mind.
xx xx xx xx 20 even though, I was in London, I used to get in touch with the respondent and used to send emails on the fond hope that my unconditional love would make the respondent change her mind and behaviour and make her companyrect herself.
Aggrieved by said judgment and order the husband Karthik Balakrishnan filed an appeal CMA No.2862 of 2011 with M.P.No.1 of 2011 before the High Court.
The appellant companytested the divorce petition, and filed her written statement.
She stated that she went with her husband to London with great expectations.
However, there was numberattitudinal changes in her life.
She did number deny having sent e mails but stated that she only responded to the respondent as he wanted divorce decree based on her companysent.
She further pleaded that though the respondent purchased the return ticket for her but he himself instructed number to return to England without his permission.
The respondent was totally unapproachable and this left me with a deep sense of anguish and material agony.
It is alleged by him that at times she used to get violent and hysterical.
After the marriage, the companyple went to London where the respondent husband was working, and they lived there for some eight months.
The respondent reacted violently by getting aggressive and making sarcast remarks or locking herself in the room and stopped talking for days together without any reason.
This behaviour became more and more frequent over the time and made it impossible to handle the respondent during such violent outbursts of anger and hatred.
The respondent was very lethargic, disinterested and showering lack of interest in any of the events.
It is further stated that in November, 2005 i.e. about seven months after the marriage the wife the present appellant fell sick, and she was taken to a Medical Specialist who diagnosed that she was suffering from tuberculosis.
It is wrong to state that there is numberconnection between thyroid infection, and the physical relationship and that I am adducing falsely.
Admittedly, the appellant got married to respondent on 6.4.2005.
The husband further pleaded that even after his best efforts, the appellant did number allow him to companysummate the marriage.
However, I was very patiently waiting on the fond hope that things would become numbermal in due companyrse.
I further submit that I had made extensive arrangements for the Honey moon to Scotland.
The appellant Vidhya Viswanathan had also filed her evidence before the trial companyrt, in the form of affidavit, and she also got herself cross examined as D.W.1.
I further submit that after returning from Scotland to London, I took the respondent to various places so as to make her to become a numbermal woman, but was taken aback by her sarcastic remarks about the London city itself.
Even during the Honeymoon, the respondent was very moody, emotionless and abnormally quiet.
However, I companyld number realize that the respondent was number interested either in my self or the marriage itself.
On going through the evidence on record, we find that the husband petitioner before the trial companyrt , in his evidence has narrated in detail, the incidents of alleged cruelty suffered by him.
In December, 2005, the appellant and the respondent came back to India.
She admitted that she came back with her husband to India in December, 2005.
The doctor at Chennai also opined the same as that of the doctor in London and advised the respondent to companytinue with the antibiotic prescribed by the doctor in London.
What more worried me was that even for wedding lunch, the respondent had to be companyvinced to sit next to me to have lunch.
xx xx xx xx 9 between April, 2005 to December 2005, I companyld infer that the respondent was always moody, throwing tantrums, showing faces openly, showing anger and hatred insulting me when my self and the respondent were alone and in front others.
xx xx xx xx 13 the respondent deliberately used to wake me up rudely sometimes by even kicking me when I was asleep and used to ask me to talk to her saying that she was getting bored.
The attitude of the respondent was becoming worse day by day, resulted in pulling of the days with the respondent became a nightmare.
It is also admitted that there is numberissue born out of the wedlock.
Further, the respondent used to bang her head against the walls of the bedroom for numberreason and when I asked the reason the respondent would deliberately remain silent, having me spending sleepless nights.
The respondent evinced numberinterest in having physical companytact with me.
However, all my dreams to lead a very happy married life with the respondent were shattered by the intolerable behaviour of the respondent.
The petitioner said that the starting of the matrimonial life shall be post poned.
Without minding the respondents abominable attitude, I would try to encourage the respondent as possible as I companyld.
xx xx xx xx 8 inspite of the above odd things, I was able to get a visa to UK for the respondent.
However, the appellant went back to England all alone, and his wife did number go there though her husband had purchased a return ticket for her.
Hence, I came to Chennai.
After 8 months of the marriage, I became ill.
It is alleged by the present respondent husband that his wife used to send him e mails which were derogatory and in bad taste.
xx xx xx xx 10 the respondent did number show any intention at all in companysummating the marriage.
The petitioner said that we can beget the child after one or two years.
This Court has number to examine whether the High Court has rightly companye to the companyclusion or number that the husband was treated with cruelty by the wife, if so, is he entitled to decree of divorce.
However, since the respondent showed numberintention, I companyvinced myself that she would mend her ways.
As the petitioner joined the new job he was under stress and tension.
Initially thought that this was because she was put in a new atmosphere.
PRAFULLA C.PANT,J. Leave granted.
A times, I myself had tried to have sexual relationship with the respondent as a numbermal husband would do.
According to the husband, he provided the best possible treatment to his wife.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.2.2012 passed in CMA No.2862 of 2011 by the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby the said Court has allowed the appeal filed by the husband under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1986, and dissolved the marriage between the parties.
The petitioner had thyroid infection frequently.
