S KOLAPPA PILLAI Vs. SUSEELA BHAI K M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred by the appellant husband against the common judgment in O.P.Nos.621, 620 and 622 of 2006. Mat.Appeal No.600 of 2008 is filed against the judgment in O.P.No.621 of 2006. Mat.Appeal No.625 of 2008 is preferred against the judgment in O.P.620 of 2006 and Mat.Appeal No. 640 of 2008 is filed against the judgment in O.P.No.622 of 2006. O.P.No. 621 of 2006 had been filed by the respondent herein who is the wife of the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. O.P.No.620 of 2006 was filed by the respondent wife seeking return of money and gold ornaments. O.P.No.622 of 2006 was preferred by the wife and two children of the appellant seeking maintenance. The original petitions were jointly tried taking O.P.No. 621 of 2006 as the main case.

(2.) The material contentions of the petitioner wife were as follows: The marriage between the parities was solemnised on 14.6.2979 as per the Hindu rites. They lived together as husband and wife and three children were born in the wedlock. For the first eight years, they lived at the petitioner's house at Kanjikkuzhi at Kottayam. Later, the respondent got appointment as Boxing Coach in the Sports Authority of India in 1987. His first appointment was in Madras and the family moved there in 1988. The respondent was transfered to Hyderabad in 2000. The petitioner and children remained in Chennai, since the children were studying there. But during 2003, the respondent developed an illicit relationship with one Udayakumari, his friend's wife. He deserted and neglected the petitioner and the children. On 23.1.2004, when the petitioner visited the house of Udayakumari, the respodent was found there and the petitioner was severely assaulted and admitted for medical treatment. The petitioner filed criminal case against Udayakumari, but due to the assurance of the respondent, the complaint was withdrawn. But the respondent continued the illicit relationship and the petitioner approached the Tamilnadu Legal Services Authority. Thereafter, the respondent arranged a rental house for the petitioner and the children. But the rent was in arrears and the landlord filed eviction suit which was not contested and the petitioner and family were evicted from the premises in April, 2005. The respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without reasonable excuse and hence she filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) The respondent husband filed objections denying a legal marriage. It is stated that the petitioner and the respondent had executed a marriage agreement in 1979 and had been living as husband and wife. He stated that he used to visit the petitioner's house at Kanjikjuzhy once in a week. He denied the allegation that he lived with Udayakumari and stated that the petitioner harassed him alleging such illicit relationship and because of the cruelty and harassment, he was compelled to leave the matrimonial house and live separately from 2000 onwards. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.