Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

R. Subbiah, J These appeals arise out of a common order dated 20.12.2016 passed in HMOP Nos. 298 and 1025 of 2014 on the file of Additional Family Judge, Coimbatore, respectively. By the said Order dated 20.12.2016, the Family Court http://www.judis.nic.in dismissed HMOP No. 298 of 2014 filed by the appellant/wife herein under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right and allowed HMOP No. 1025 of 2014 filed by the respondent-husband under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereby the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent on 25.06.2009 was declared as null and void.

2. The respondent herein has filed HMOP No. 3 of 2014 before the Family Court, Madurai under Section 11 of The HIndu Marriage Act (in short The Act) praying to declare the marriage solemnised between him and the appellant herein on 25.06.2009 at Star Park Kalyana Mandapam, Madurai as null and void. On receipt of notice in HMOP No. 3 of 2014, the appellant herein has filed HMOP No. 298 of 2014 before the Family Court, Coimbatore, under Section 9 of The Act for restitution of conjuugal rights. During the pendency of the aforesaid Original Petitions, the appellant herein has filed Tr.CMP No. 226 of 2014 before this Court to transfer HMOP No. 3 of 2014 on the file of Family Court, Madurai to the file of Family Court, Coimbatore so as to be tried along with HMOP No. 298 of 2014 filed by her. By order dated 24.07.2014, this Court allowed the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition transferring HMOP No. 3 of 2014 from the file of Family Court, Madurai to the file of Family Court, Coimbatore, so as to be tried along with HMOP No. 298 of 2014 filed by the appellant. On transfer, HMOP No. 3 of 2014 was re-numbered as HMOP No. 1025 of 2014.

13. Apart from the counter affidavit filed by the appellant in the HMOP No. 1025 of 2014 filed by the respondent, the appellant has also filed an HMOP No. 298 of 2014 under Section 9 of the Act. In the Petition filed in HMOP No. 298 of 2014, while reiterating the averments she made in the counter affidavit in HMOP No. 1025 of 2014, she has stated that from March 2011, she is staying along with her parents and that the parents of the respondent have remained as a stumbling block for her to get re-united with the respondent. Even on 31.12.2013, when the appellant met the father of the respondent at Tallakulam Police Station in connection with the enquiry conducted by the Police officials on the basis of the complaint given by the father of the respondent, he has openly stated that he is http://www.judis.nic.in taking steps to arrange another marriage to the respondent with a girl. On 19.01.2014, the appellant has also given a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Coimbatore East, Coimbatore against her parents-in-law and requested them to enquire the respondent to enable her to join him in the matrimonial home. During the course of an enquiry, the father of the respondent had made false and misleading statement about the marital life of the appellant and the respondent besides refused to divulge the date on which the respondent is likely to return to India from London. As all the attempts made by the appellant to rejoin the matrimonial home failed, she has filed the Original Petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

53. Point No.3:- The appellant, in the counter affidavit filed in HMOP No. 3 of 2014 filed by the respondent (HMOP No. 1025 of 2014) has categorically stated that she is inclined to join the matrimonial company of the respondent, but it is prevented by the parents of the respondent in all forms and manifestations. The appellant also stated that she had given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Coimbatore East, complaining that the parents of the respondent herein remain as a stumbling block for her to resume her marital life with the respondent. Thus, the appellant had taken several steps to rejoin the matrimonial company of the respondent even during the pendency of the Original Petition filed by the respondent for declaring the marriage solemnised between him and the appellant as a nullity.. Notwithstanding the filing of the counter affidavit, as stated above, the appellant has also independently filed HMOP No. 298 of 2014 under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right. Even in the deposition of the appellant before the Family Court, as RW1, she has categorically stated that she had taken several steps to rejoin the matrimonial company of the respondent, but she could not succeed in such attempts. Thus, it is evident that the appellant was always ready and willing to join the matrimonial company of the respondent. In any event, in view of our findings with respect to point Nos. 1 and 2, holding that the alleged marriage between Stephen Vinod, PW4 and the appellant cannot be recognised under The Act as it was not proved by the respondent by adducing concrete material evidence, we answer point No.3 also in favour of the appellant http://www.judis.nic.in and against the respondent.