Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5A. Mr. P. A. Augustine was examined as P.W. I. He would depose that the 2nd plaintiff is his daughter, and he is the Power of Attorney to represent his daughter. The marriage between his daughter and the 2nd defendant took place on 18-8-96 at Loyola College Chapel. After the marriage was solemnised the 2nd plaintif and 2nd defendant lived in the second defendant's house viz., 55, Salt Colony, Egmore. They lived together for 10 months and 2 days. His daughter informed him that the 2nd defendant's behaviour was not normal and that he had conspired along with his family members. After his daughter came to his house leaving her matrimonial home, he contacted his counsel for dissolution of marriage. When he sent a notice to the defendants address stating that they are going to seek for nullity of marriage in view of the non-consummation of marriage in spite of 10 months of married life, their reply was that they are not Interested in the continuation of the marriage and promised to return the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs which he had given to his daughter within six months. But the defendant did not do so. On 10-8-97 the plaintiffs went along with their Advocate Mr. Alex to the defendants house to retrieve things under the instruction of the defendant's lawyer Mr. Sridharan. But the outcome of their visit was that there was heated confrontation and they locked the 2nd plaintiff in a room and threatened her to cut her Into pieces. His daughter filed O.M.S. 46/97 before this Hon'ble Court seeking nullity of marriage. The second defendant her ein appeared through his counsel and filed counter in the said suit and on enquiry the said suit was dismissed. His daughter filed an appeal in O.S.A. 50/99 which was allowed after enquiry on 29-4-99. In the said proceedings an application in No. 2294/99 was taken up seeking for submission of both the parties before a medical board for medical check up. But the second defendant did not appear before the said medical board. It is not correct to state that the present suit is filed in order to harass the defendants and extract money from them. The 2nd plaintiff was Just 21 years old and had lost her life and lost their dignity, name and suffered financially by running from pillar to post and by approaching advocates and also the church authorities. Therefore, filed the present suit seeking compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs. Present the 2nd plaintiff was married to a divorcee and Is leading her life. Ex. P2 is the copy of the legal notice 2-7-97 given by the 2nd plaintiff to the 2nd defendant. Ex. P3 is the true copy of the, reply from the defendants side dated 17-7-97. Ex. P4 is the certified copy of the petition filed by 2nd plaintiff in OMS 46/97. Ex. P. 5 is the certified copy of the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant in OMS 46/97. Ex. P. 6 is the certified copy of the affidavit filed in support of the Application No. 2494/ 98 seeking for potency test. Ex. P7 is the certified copy of the counterfile by the 2nd defendant for that application Ex. P 8 is the certified copy of the deposition in chief of the 2nd plaintiff in the aforesaid proceedings. Ex. P. 9 is the certified copy of the cross examination of the 2nd plaintiff. Ex. P. 10 is the certified judgment copy in OSA 50/ 99. Ex. P 11 is the copy of the notice dated 16-6-99 filed by the 2nd plaintiff prior to the suit. Ex P. 12 is the reply dated 5-7 99 to the aforesaid notice.

6. 'The evidence of Mr. Agnatius alias Ronnle examined as D. W. 1 is that the 2nd plaintiff was quite indifferent during their married life. She was basically not interested in the marriage she was quite young and still continuing her studies. The 2nd plaintiff did not co-operate for sexual relationship. He has not suffered from any physical debility before and after the marriage and he was fit person to perform the marriage obligations. The first defendant did not have any knowledge about the happenings and misunderstandings between the 2nd defendant and the 2nd plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff left the matrimonial home in June/July 1997 on the pretext that her grand-father was ill. Subsequently came home to take back her belongings. Subsequently the defendant received a telephonic information from the 2nd plaintiffs father stating that the 2nd plaintiff is going to file a suit for divorce. The 2nd plaintiff was not allowed to speak to the 2nd defendant. A notice was received from the-Court informing that the 2nd plaintiff had filed a petition seeking nullity of marriage. The suit OMS 46/97 was filed given statement by the 2nd plaintiff that the reason for her request for nullity of mariage was the non-consummation of marriage because of the 2nd defendant's physical debility is not correct. She had stated so because that is the only way she could get the marriage nullified. Initially the 2nd defendant was not in favour of dissolution of marriage but since the 2nd plaintiff continued to be indifferent towards marriage he accepted. Initially the 2nd defendant did not undergo any potency test but after receiving notice from the Court, he underwent the test on his own. One Dr. Parthasarathy' Family Medical Centre, Annanager, conducted the potency test on D. W. 1 (D.W.1 underwent the said test just to disprove the accusation of the 2nd plaintiff regarding physical debility. The said doctor gave D. W. 1 a certificate certifying that he is normal and do not-suffer from any physical debility. Though certificate was issued on 15-10-98 it was not filed in this Hon'ble Court because the lawyer of D. W. 1 told him that it would be filed at the appropriate time. Even without filing of the said certificate, the O.M.S. 46/97 was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court. D. W. 1 did not know why Ex. Dl certificate was not filed even during the appeal proceedings as the same was in the custody of his counsel. D. W. 1's mother the 1st defendant is a diabetic and heart patient and she is not medically fit to appear before this Hon'ble Court and thus she has asked D.W. 1 to adduce evidence on behalf of her also 2nd plaintiff had married for the second time and was expecting a child. D.W. 1 is terribly affected because of these proceedings and his chances of remarriage have also been affected because whenever a proposal of alliance came, the parties demanded the judgment copy of the decree nullifying the marriage. D. W. 1 stated that he did not receive Rs. 2 lakhs from the plaintiffs and all the wedding expenses were borne by them amounting to Rs. 1 lakh and more. In 1998, itself the plaintiffs have filed money suit against D. W. 1 for recovery of Rs. 2 lakhs and he is defending himself in that case and the same is still pending. D.W. 1 is not employed and he is depending on his elder brother for his maintenance. His elder brother is looking after his family and D. W. 1 is searching for employment. The reason for the 2nd plaintiff filing suit against D. W. 1 is that they did not want me as a hurdle for the 2nd plaintiffs remarriage and also because they wanted to exercise their control over me. The 2nd plaintiff also threatened D. W. 1 that she would end her life if D.W. 1 do not co-operate with her in seeking nullity of marriage. Having no other go, D. W. 1 is co-operating with 2nd plaintiff. There was a chance of re-union between the D. W. 1 and 2nd plaintiff and D.W. 1 had appealed to the Church authorities in order to save the marriage but the plaintiff side did not appear before the church authorities. Hence the proposal for re-union has not materialised. D. W. 1's mother the first defendant is in no way responsible for the alleged sufferings underwent by the plaintiff.

7. Arguing for the plaintiffs, the learned counsel would submit that the second plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff; that the second defendant is the son of the first defendant; that after number of meetings and discussions and following the arrangements, the marriage of the second plaintiff with the second defendant was celebrated on 18-8-1996 at Loyola Church, Madras; that it was presumed that the second defendant was free from any physical debility and would be able to consummate the marriage thereof; that after the marriage the couple were living at the first defendant's house at No. 55, Sait Colony, 2nd Street, Egmore, Chennal 8; that from the very first day for a period of 10 months during the matrimonial life, the second defendant never disclosed that he was Incapable of having sexual intercourse, but was avoiding on some pretext or other; that the second plaintiff was with the fond hope that the marriage would be consummated on one day, but at one point of time she was able to understand that the second defendant was impotent and that they have deliberately suppressed the fact and due to that the plaintiff who could not bear the mental pain, sufferrings and deception left the matrimonial home, went to her parents and informed them about the same and as to the conspiracy also; that when the first plaintiff asked about the same, there was no reaction on the part of the defendants; that even the attempts for reconciliation, compromise or mediation or counselling through the lawyer also did not fructify; that the second plaintiff had no other alternative than to issue a notice stating all the circumstances, as found under Ex. P. 2, which resulted in a reply of the second defendant as found under Ex. P 3; that a perusal of Ex. P3 would clearly reveal that the second defendant has not answered in respect of the allegations as to his impotency, but on the contrary he requested two months' time for payment of Rs. 2.00 lakhs what they received at the time of the marriage; that the second plaintiff under the stated circumstances filed O.M.S. 46/97 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of impotency. The second defendant seriously contested the suit and on trial, the learned single Judge dismissed the suit; that aggrieved by the said judgment, the second plaintiff filed O.S.A. 50/99; that the Division Bench of this Court after full consideration of the facts and circumstances, rival pleadings and evidence granted the relief of dissolution of marriage and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge; that the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2.00 lakhs which was given at the time of the second plaintiffs marriage; that the plaintiffs have filed this suit for damages due to fraud, pain and mental sufferings, loss of status and deprivation of the marriage life of the second plaintiff for the stigma caused for the family of the plaintifs; that P.W. 1 for himself and on behalf of his daughter the second plaintiff herein has categorically deposed as to the fraud played on them and the suppression of the impotency and the loss of reputation and stigma to the family. Added further the learned counsel that the second defendant has taken the stand that he was not suffering from any physical debility in all the earlier proceedings; that the contention of the defendants' side that the second defendant has undergone the potency test, sine the medical science would require in order to confirm the same is false; that the further contention of the defendants' side that Ex. D1 certificate would clearly speak of the potency of the second defendant has got to be rejected since Ex. Dl certificate has been given only on the basis of the semen analysis and it was not on the basis of the potency test and apart from that Ex. Dl certificate bears the date as 15-2-1998, but in the earlier proceedings the written statement was filed on 4-7-98; that the second defendant has categorically deposed that what was referred to in the written statement in O.M.S. was Ex. Dl and thus it would be clear that on the date of filing the written statement on 4-7-98, Ex. D1 certificate was not at all available with the second defendant and hence Ex. Dl certificate should have come into existence during the pendency of this proceedings; that the Division Bench of this Court has much commented upon the second defendant's conduct in not examining himself as a witness to rebut the case of the plaintiffs side and as to the non production of the medical certificate what was refered to in the written statement; that the Division Bench has categorically analysed the whole facts and circumstanes and the evidence adduced both oral and documentary and has arrived at a correct conclusion that the marriage could not be consummated only due to incapability and impotency of the second defendant and the said judgment has become conclusive, since no appeal has been preferred and now it would be too late for the defendants to state that the second defendant is well fit for sexual acts and the marriage could not be consummated because of the age, and lack of co-operation on the part of the second plaintiff and if is pertinent to note that the second plaintiff was 22 years at the time of the marriage; that there is overwhelming evidence indicating that the defendants have suppressed the impotency of the second defendant, played fraud on the plaintiffs and have conducted the marriage and even subsequent to the conduct of the marriage, they have suppressed the same and in particular the second defendant has suppressed the same during the period of 10 months of short matrimony and not satisfied with all the above, the second defendant contested both the suit and the appeal and thus the defendants are responsible for mental agony and sufferings; that it is true that the second plaintiff due to her advanced stage of pregnancy, was not examined in Court; that the first plaintiff for himself and as the power of attorney of the second plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1; that by his clinching oral evidence and documentary evidence, the plaintiffs have proved their claim and hence the suit has got to be decreed.