Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Further, relying on the findings of the Family Court regarding the non- consummation of marriage, pointing out to the evidence of the husband and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.2655 and 2535 of 2019 wife that she, in her cross-examination, has not come out with any serious effort made by her to make the marriage consummated and again her statements that the marriage was never consummated and they never had physical intimacy would all show that there was non-consummation of marriage and from the evidence of the husband, it would be clear that it was the behaviour of the wife which shut him down from advancing further and therefore, both on account of leveling unsubstantiated allegation and non-consummating of the marriage, it is the respondent/wife who has caused mental cruelty to her husband.

16. After taking this Court through Ex.C-1, the Psychological Evaluation Report, the learned Counsel would rely upon the judgment in Sharda Vs. Dharmpal18 to contend that the object of the Court is always to find out the truth and the Courts, in matrimonial cases, can refer the parties to medical examination. He would rely upon the judgment in Lalith Kishore Vs. Meeru Sharma and Another19, more specifically relying upon paragraph Nos.4 and 5, would submit that the medical examination of the experts can only lead to the truth. By relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in T.Srinivasan Vs. T.Varalakshmi (Mrs)20, he would submit that if the fault is on the part of the husband, then, by virtue of Section 23(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, he is not entitled to relief. For the same proposition, the learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment in Hirachand Srinivas 18 (2003) 4 SCC 493 19 (2009) 9 SCC 433 20 (1998) 3 SCC 112 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.2655 and 2535 of 2019 Managaonkar Vs. Sunanda21 more specifically upon paragraph Nos.12 and 13. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Savitri Pandey Vs. Prem Chandra Pandey22, more specifically paragraph No.13 to contend that the approach of the Court should be to preserve the matrimonial relationship and should be reluctant to dissolve the marriage on the asking of one of the parties. The learned Counsel would also rely upon the judgment of High Court of Delhi in Amar Lal Arora Vs. Shashi Bala23, more specifically paragraph No.19 to contend that the husband has blameworthy conduct, cannot thereafter make allegations on the wife. The learned Counsel would also further relied upon the judgment in Rosaline Rajan Vs. S.M. Joseph Xavier Lourdarajan24 regarding the fact even if a person does not have physical impotence, the refusal to consummate can be at a psychological level. For the same proposition, he would also rely upon the judgment in Debashis Chakraborty Vs. Mausumi Bhattacharjee25. Therefore, the Trial Court completely erred in brushing aside the Psychological Evaluation Report, whereby, the respondent/wife has categorically proved that the non- consummation of marriage is because of the personality disorder on the part of the husband and therefore, having the fault on his side, the husband is not 21 (2001) 4 SCC 125 22 (2002) 2 SCC 73 23 MANU/DE/2596/2011 24 AIR 1983 Mad 164 25 (2008) 1 Gau LR 843 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.2655 and 2535 of 2019 entitled for both reliefs of nullity and divorce. Therefore, he would pray to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Application filed by the wife and dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Application filed by the husband. The practical approach:

.
.
.
.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.2655 and 2535 of 2019 .
Admittedly the marriage was not consummated. The parties blame each other for non-consummation of the marriage.

32. As far as the husband is concerned, he had not pleaded non- consummation as a ground of cruelty in the petition. However, the same has been taken as a ground as if an unsubstantiated allegation is made in the counter affidavit and thus amounting to cruelty. While the fact remains that, there is ample evidence on record to prove that the disability/unwilling was on the part of the husband. In this regard, the evidence of R.W.2, namely the mother of the husband and mother-in-law of the wife is important. Though there is some contradiction in her evidence in chief and cross examination, a complete reading of her evidence would show that there were no erroneous behaviour on the part of her son as well as the daughter-in-law that she wanted the marriage to work. Had the daughter-in-law been responsible for the non- consummation of marriage, even after so much of passage of time, any mother- in-law of the wife/mother of the husband would have categorically taken a stand in favour of her son so that he can move on and have a family life. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.2655 and 2535 of 2019 Therefore, the finding of the Family Court, in this regard, is perverse and requires interference.