1

Hon'ble Sub Court

Trichirappalli

H.M.O.P.No. 229 /2018

S.Sathiskumar .. Petitioner / husband

versus

Sudha (a) Kavi Arasi .. Respondent / wife

Counter humbly submitted by the respondent / wife

1. All the allegations submitted by the petitioner in his

affidavit, except that are specifically admitted hereunder, are

stoutly denied by the respondent. They have to be strictly

proved by the petitioner through sufficient evidence and

exhibits, without any reasonable doubt.

2. The allegations set out by the petitioner in his petition

at para Nos. 3 and 4, are admitted by the respondent. That

in so far as the facts stated by the petitioner in para No.5 are

concerned, the averment that the respondent was living with

the petitioner for only one year was denied, and other

allegations have been admitted by this respondent. The

allegations stated by the petitioner in para Nos. 6 and 7 of the

petitions have been stoutly denied by this respondent. That

as far as the facts stated in para 8 of the petition are

concerned, it is stated that the petitioner and his mother have

done physical and mental torture to the respondent and

besides, from the house at Manapparai, the respondent, along

with her infant, was driven out. The other facts which had

been stated in the abovementioned para, have been stoutly

 2

denied by the respondent and the facts set out in para 9 are

also denied by this respondent. As far as the facts set out in

para 10 of the petition are concerned, that the notice dated

10.07.2018 had been issued on the side of the petitioner, that

following the same, reply notice was sent on the side of the

respondent were admitted by the respondent and other

allegations have been denied.

3. After the solemnization of marriage between the

petitioner and the respondent, the respondent had been living

with the parents of the petitioner at Manapparai as a joint

family. In the situation when the petitioner was living with the

respondent for a period of 2 weeks only at Manapparai,

stating that he has to attend the work, he had gone to

Chennai. The petitioner so had gone, will come to Manapparai

once in a month, only for 1 or 2 days and then would go to

Chennai. Though the petitioner had stated that he has been

working at Hotel 'Le Meridian' at Chennai, he had not informed

to the respondent as to what is the nature of work he has

been doing. When he came down to Manappari from Chennai,

on each occasion, though the respondent requested him to

accompany her also to Chennai, the petitioner has refused to

do so. Further, at the time of marriage, the parents of the

respondent, had given 11 sovereign of jewels (chain, ring,

bracelet and hip chain) are all, at present, with the petitioner

only. Similarly, the jewels which had been given to the

respondent are all with the respondent, in that situation,

 3

sreedhana articles are with the petitioner at his house at

Manapparai.

4. In this situation, a female child by name Nishika was

born to the petitioner and the respondent, that even after a

period of 3 months after birth, since anybody from the

petitioner's side had not accompanied the respondent, leaving

with no other option, the parents of the respondent had

accompanied the respondent to the house of the petitioner.

To that, the petitioner's mother had quarrelled with the

respondent and her parents, questioning the respondent as to

why she had come so early. While the respondent was living

with her child at the house of petitioner at Manapparai, the

petitioner's mother Usharani, put her under untold sadness.

That is, she used to say that the expenses for meals and

medical expenses of the child is getting huge and as such

asked the respondent to get money from her parents and in

such a way the petitioner's mother treated her cruelly.

Further on 13.01.2012, when the petitioner had come on

leave, upon the inducement of ill-advise of his mother, having

drunk, scolded the respondent in unparliamentarily words,

that holding her hair had beaten her and thus tortured her.

While the respondent questioned as to why he had been doing

so, the petitioner and his mother, scolded the respondent "are

you retarded? headless guy" and in unparliamentarily and

abusive words.
 4

5. That on a day in the month of January, 2013,the

petitioner, joined with his friend Prasad, consumed alcohol,

that he had fallen from the two wheeler, that he sustained a

fracture in his shoulder bone, that he was admitted at AGS

hospital, Manapparai and that the petitioner's father had not

even had gone to the hospital, to look at him, since he had

fallen due to drunkenness. For more than 1 month, the

respondent had been looking at the petitioner in a well

manner. The petitioner's father refused to allow the petitioner

into the house, who used to come to house belatedly with

drunkenness. Further the petitioner, who is coming to house

often with drunkenness, used to torture the respondent

without allowing her to sleep and used to throw articles by

hands and thus caused injuries to the respondent. As such,

though the respondent sustained severe mental agony,

considering her future, with no other way to go, was living

with the petitioner.

6. Further, on 26.03.2013, the petitioner having

returned having consumed brandy, had a quarrel with the

respondent as to why she is feeding mother milk to the child,

and beat her causing blood shedding injuries at her cheek and

lips. When the petitioner's mother, who was looking at it,

without scolding the petitioner, she further induced the

petitioner. The petitioner who was at the peak of

drunkenness, at one point of time, attempted to cause injury

to the respondent by scissors and that the petitioner had also

 5

attempted to stab the petitioner's father who came there on

hearing the shouting of the child. Later, since the petitioner

himself had slept after past of late hours, the respondent had

peace of mind. Later, when the petitioner's father had

accompanied the respondent to Nazruddin hospital, for

treatment to the bleeding injury, the petitioner's father

threatened the respondent not to disclose it to anybody. In

this situation, on 28.03.2013, the petitioner and his parents

called Selvaraj, the uncle (father's younger brother) of the

respondent, and with him, they have sent the respondent by

force. Thereafter, the petitioner only, had gone to Karaikal

then and there and had seen the respondent as a formality.

7. That on 01.01.2017, when the respondent had

informed the petitioner at Arignar Anna Arts and Science

College, Karaikal, where she had studied Ph.D. got a job as

Guest Faculty, the petitioner had a quarrel with the

respondent stating that she should hand over the entire salary

to him. Later, since the respondent did not have time to study

Ph.D. in short passage of time, she left the said job. Since the

petitioner has not provided any money towards the food,

cloth, medical expenses and other expenses either to the

respondent or to her child, the respondent is leading a very

difficult life. In this situation, in the month of May, 2018, the

petitioner, his father had come to the residence of the house

of respondent at Karaikal, compelled her that she should

come to Pondicherry and that she should look after a job and
 6

hand over the salary to them. To that the respondent had

stated that since she is undergoing PhD. and that after

completion of her studies, she would come, and though the

respondent begged to great extent, the petitioner and his

father had a quarrel and left. Thereafter, stating false

allegations and reasons and with the inducement of his

parents, the petitioner had sent a legal notice on 10.07.2018

to the respondent. To that, on 23.07.2018 the respondent

with proper explanations, through her lawyer, had sent a

letter of objection. Further, the respondent thinking of the

future of her and her child, till now, without giving any

complaint before police, is leading her life.

8. That though the petitioner and his parents are

torturing her to great extent, the respondent is waiting for the

petitioner, on all her eyes on the way, with the fond hope and

strong belief, considering her child's future, that on any one of

the days, her husband will be changed. That since the study of

Ph.D. is going to end in 6 months' period of time, thereafter,

the respondent is intending to live with the petitioner.

Similarly, the respondent wishes that the petitioner should

stop his drinking habit and without any quarrel and dispute

should live peacefully.

9. That the respondent reserves her right to file

additional counter if need be.

 7

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, it is prayed that

this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition with

costs and thus render justice.

sd/-xx Counsel sd// xx Respondent / wife.

VERIFICATION

I, the respondent, solemnly affirm that the facts stated

above, are true and correct to my knowledge, belief and

having read over and sign on 10.06.2019 at Madurai, wherein

I have come down temporarily.

sd/-xx

Respondent / wife.
 8

Hon'ble Sub Court

Trichirappalli
I.A.No. / 2019
in
H.M.O.P.No. 229 /2018
1.Sudha (a) Kavi Arasi
wife of S.Sathiskumar,
18, Mathur road,
Sethur post,
Karaikal district
Pondicherry .. 1st Petitioner/respondent

2.Nishika,
daughter of S.Sathiskumar
-do-
(minor - through 2nd petitioner's
mother and natural guardian
1st petitioner) .. 2nd petitioner

Versus

S.Sathiskumar .. Respondent / wife

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sudha (a) Kavi Arasi, wife of Satiskumar, Hindu, aged

about 35 years, residing at Door No.18, Mathur road, Sethur

post, Karaikal district, Pondicherry State - 609601 do hereby

solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows :

1. I am the 1st petitioner in this petition. 2nd petitioner

is my daughter. Since the 2nd petitioner is the minor, as her

natural guardian, on her behalf also, I am filing this affidavit. I

crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to treat the counter filed by

me in the Original Petition filed by the respondent before this

Court praying divorce, as a part of this affidavit.

2. That the marriage between myself and the respondent

was solemnized at Karuna Mahal, Hotel Mayas, Chatram bus

stand, Trichirappalli, on 05.09.2010 in the presence of elders,

 9

relatives and friends. At the time of marriage, I was provided

with 40 sovereigns of gold jewels, house hold articles worth

about Rs.3 lakh by way of shreedhana were given. Similarly,

at the time of marriage, my parents had given 11 sovereign of

jewels to the respondent (chain, ring, bracelet and hip chain)

are all, and the above said jewels are at present, with the

respondent only. After the solemnization of marriage

between myself and the respondent, I had been living with the

parents of the respondent at Manapparai as a joint family. In

that situation, the respondent was living with me at

Manapparai for a period of 2 weeks only, stating that he has

to attend the work, he had gone to Chennai. The respondent

so had gone, will come to Manapparai once in a month, only

for 1 or 2 days and then would go to Chennai. Though the

respondent had stated that he has been working at Hotel 'Le

Meridian' at Chennai, he had not informed to me as to what is

the nature of work he has been doing. When he came down to

Manappari from Chennai, on each occasion, though I had

requested him to accompany me also to Chennai, the

respondent has refused to do so.

3. In this situation, a female child by name Nishika was

born to me and the respondent, that even after a period of 3

months, since the respondent's side had not accompanied me,

leaving with no other option, my parents had brought me to

the house of the respondent. To that, the respondent's mother

had quarrelled with me and my parents, questioning me as to

 10

why I had come so early. While I was living with my child at

the house of respondent at Manapparai, the respondent's

mother Usharani, put me under untold sadness. That is, she

used to say that the expenses for meals and medical

expenses of the child is getting huge and as such asked me to

get money from my parents and in such a way the

respondent's mother treated me cruelly. Further on

13.01.2012, when the respondent had come on leave, upon

the inducement of ill-advise of his mother, having drunk,

scolded me in unparliamentarily words, that holding my hair

had beaten her and thus tortured me. While I have

questioned him as to why he had been doing so, the

respondent and his mother, scolded me "are you retarded?

headless guy" and in unparliamentarily and abusive words.

4. That on a day in the month of January, 2013,the

respondent, joined with his friend Prasad, consumed alcohol,

that he had fallen from the two wheeler, that he sustained a

fracture in his shoulder bone, that he was admitted at AGS

hospital, Manapparai and that the respondent's father had not

even had gone to the hospital, to look at him, since he had

fallen due to drunkenness. For more than 1 month, I have

been looking at the respondent in a well manner. The

respondent's father refused to allow the respondent into the

house, who used to come to house belatedly with

drunkenness. Further the respondent, who is coming to house

with drunkenness, used to torture me without allowing me to

 11

sleep and used to throw articles by hands and thus caused

injuries to me. As such, though I have sustained severe

mental agony, considering my future, with no other way to go,

was living with the respondent.

5. Further, on 26.03.2013, the respondent having

returned having consumed brandy, had a quarrel with me as

to why I am feeding mother milk to the child, and beat me

causing blood shedding injuries at my cheek and lips. When

the respondent's mother, who was looking at it, without

scolding the respondent, she further induced the respondent.

The respondent who was at the peak of drunkenness, at one

point of time, attempted to cause injury to me by scissors and

that the respondent had also attempted to stab respondent's

father who came there on hearing the shouting of the child.

Later, since the respondent himself had slept after past of

late hours, I had peace of mind. Later, when the respondent's

father had accompanied me to Nazruddin hospital, for

treatment to the bleeding injury, the respondent's father

threatened me not to disclose it to anybody. In this situation,

on 28.03.2013, the respondent and his parents called

Selvaraj, my uncle (father's younger brother), and with him,

they have sent me by force. Thereafter, the respondent only,

had gone to Karaikal then and there and had seen the

respondent as a formality.

6. That on 01.01.2017, when I have informed the

respondent at Arignar Anna Arts and Science College,

 12

Karaikal, where I have had studied Ph.D. got a job as Guest

Faculty, the respondent had a quarrel with me stating that I

should hand over the entire salary to him. Later, since I did

not have time to study Ph.D. in short passage of time, I have

left the said job. Since the respondent has not provided any

money towards the food, cloth, medical expenses and other

expenses either to me or to my child, I am leading a very

difficult life. In this situation, in the month of May, 2018, the

respondent and his father had come to my residence at

Karaikal, compelled me that I should come to Pondicherry and

that I should look after a job and hand over the salary to

them. To that I have stated that since I am undergoing PhD.

and that after completion of my studies, I would come, and

though I have begged to great extent, the respondent and his

father had a quarrel and left. Thereafter, stating false

allegations and reasons and with the inducement of his

parents, the respondent had sent a legal notice on 10.07.2018

to the respondent. To that, on 23.07.2018 I have, with proper

explanations, through my lawyer, had sent a letter of

objection. Further, thinking of my future and my child, till now,

without giving any complaint before police, am leading my

life.

7. That though the respondent and his parents are

torturing me to great extent, I am waiting keeping, on all my

eyes on the way, with the fond hope and strong belief,

considering my child's future, that on any one of the days, my

 13

husband will be changed. That since the study of Ph.D. is

going to end in 6 months' period of time, thereafter, I am

willing to live with the petitioner. Similarly, I wish that the

respondent should stop his drinking habit and without any

quarrel and dispute should live peacefully.

8. Since the date of marriage, the respondent was

torturing me, without doing his essential needs to me. That

even after I have given birth to a child, without providing

sufficient nutrition to the child, and medical expenses, he

tortured me to get the amount from my parents and to spend

the same. Because of the torture of the respondent and his

parents, from the year 2013, I am residing at my parents'

house with my child, at Karaikal. The 2nd petitioner, born to

me and the respondent, is studying 3rd standard at Bright

Academy. The educational expenses of the 2nd petitioner

comes to Rs.60,000/- per year. For the past 5 years, the

respondent who would come and see me then and there, has

not given any amount to my day to day needs or towards the

educational expenses of the 2nd petitioner or towards other

expenses. Though the respondent is having the lawful duty to

maintain myself and my son, the respondent is failing in his

duty from discharging so.

9. The respondent is working now as Assistant Manager

at Adithi hotel situated at Sardar Vallabai salai, Pondicherry

and earning more than a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. Also

from Raja Rice Mill, belonging to the respondent ancestrally,

 14

he is getting a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month and also

through his father, by lending the amount for interest, he is

getting more than a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. Since the

respondent is the only legal heir to his parents, the

respondent is getting the above said entire amount. Thus, the

respondent is earning more than a sum of Rs.2 lakh per

month, has not maintained myself and my child. This is

legally a wrong one. For the above said reasons, it is just and

necessary that this Hon'ble Court to pass orders directing the

respondent to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards maintenance

to me and a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the 2nd petitioner towards

his educational expenses as interim maintenance till the

disposal of the original petition and thus render justice.

Therefore I pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased

to pass orders directing the respondent to pay to the 1st

petitioner a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance and a

sum of Rs.25,000/- to the 2nd petitioner towards his

educational expenses as interim maintenance and thus

render justice.

Solemnly affirm that the above said facts

are true and sign at Madurai, coming down sd/-1st

petitioner

temporarily, on this the 10.06.2019, I have (for herself and

for
put my signature. minor daughter the
2nd petitioner).
sd/-- Advocate.
15

(P.Ponmurugan)
1505/03, 17 Law Chamber,
District Court Building,
Madurai
 16

Sub Court, Manapparai

HMOP.No. 14 2019 Date : 06.09.2022

Name : Rajendran s/o Balusamy

(Witness P.W.1 again re-called, administered oath, and he was

permitted to cross examine)

P.W.2 - cross examination:

The details found in my proof affidavit, have been stated

by me. I know the details found therein. If it is stated that I do

not know the details stated in para 3 of my proof affidavit

directly, the answer is that as my son had stated, I know it. If

it is asked as to whether my daughter-in-law, had joined in

Arignar Anna Arts College, in the year 2014 to undergo Ph.D.

studies, the answer is that she had joined. But, she had not

asked any permission with us. If it is stated that my daughter-

in-law, after getting permission with me and my son, for

undergoing Ph.D. studies, had joined in the college and that

for the purpose of this petition, I am stating falsely that she

had joined without obtaining permission, the answer is that it

is wrong to say so. If it is stated that if truly, my daughter-in-

law had joined Ph.D. studies without obtaining any permission,

at that time itself, we would have taken legal action, the

answer is that it is not correct to say so. If it is stated that in

the year 2013, road accident was occurred to my son and he

was taken for treatment, the answer is that it is correct to say

so. If it is stated that since my son had been in the state of

 17

drunkenness, the above said accident took place, the answer

is that it is not correct to say so.

That my son is not having drinking habit. If it is stated

that to find out that as to whether a person is in the habit of

consuming alcohol, or not, his blood, urine have to be sent to

test, the answer is that it is correct to say so. If it is stated

that my son is in the habit of consuming alcohol and for the

purpose of this petition, I am saying wrongly that he is not

having the habit of consuming alcohol, the answer is that it is

not correct to say so. If it is asked that as to whether on

26.03.213, whether any problem had arisen between my son

and my daughter-in-law, the answer is that it is not correct to

say so. If it is stated that in that issue, for the injury caused to

my daughter - in - law, I have brought her to Nasreen hospital,

the answer is that I had brought her to hospital, but the

reason is that it is not that. Since the child was not having

good health, I had brought to hospital. If it is stated that I am

stating wrongly that since the child was not having good

health, I had brought to hospital, the answer is that it is not

correct to say so. If it is stated that my daughter-in-law had

been in my house, from June, 2020 for a period of 8 months,

the answer is that she was there. My daughter-in-law had

informed to my son over phone that she has been coming to

house, and saying so, she was there. Subsequently, stating

again she is going to study, she had gone to undergo study. If

it is stated that the fact that from June 2020 for a period of 8
 18

months, she was in my house, I have not stated in my proof

affidavit, the answer is that it is correct to say so. If it is stated

that since it is adverse to my petition, wantonly we have not

stated so, the answer is that it is not correct to say so. If it is

stated that in my proof affidavit, I have not specifically stated

the facts that on which date, and who are the members, who

have gone and pacified and brought my daughter-in-law, the

answer is that it is correct to say so. If it is stated that the

details set out in para 4, 5 are wrong, the answer is that it is

not correct to say so. If it is stated that when our daughter-in-

law was present at our home from June 2020 for about 8

months, that when she had stated that she has to attend

seminar in connection with her studies, we have not allowed

her, that we have locked, she had made a phone to police

station, that from police station, police have come and

brought her, the answer is that upon misunderstanding the

argument which took place between myself and my son, my

daughter-in-law had informed the police. My son had argued

that since I have not made arrangement for his separate

business, he had argued. If it is stated that no argument was

taken place as stated by me, between myself and my son,

that for the purpose of the petition, I have stated that

argument took place, the answer is that it is not correct say

so. Mahalir Police have come. If it is stated that if women

police had enquire, the true status will be known, the answer

is that it is correct to say so. If it is stated that from the date

 19

of marriage, till 2018, my daughter-in-law had been in our

house only, the answer is that then and there, she will go out.

I am having a grand-daughter. It is correct to state that my

daughter-in-law had not given any complaint against myself

and my son, either before police station, and that no case had

been filed before Court, the answer is that it is correct to say

so. If it is stated that my daughter-in-law, considering the

welfare of her daughter, till this day, she is liking to live with

my son and that the petition is liable to be dismissed, the

answer is that it is not correct to say so.

**
 20

Hon'ble Sub Court

Manapparai
H.M.O.P.No. 14 of 2019

Sathiskumar .. Petitioner

versus
Sudha (a) Kaviarasi
wife of Sathiskumar .. Respondent

Pari .. 2nd witness

on the side of
respondent

Proof Affidavit filed by the 2nd witness on the side of the

respondent

Pari, son Ganesan, Hindu, aged about 55, residing at

Door No. 1/579, Poosaripannai, Seegampatti, Manapparai

taluk, Trichirappalli 621312, solemnly affirm and sincerely

state as follows :

1. I am the 2nd witness on the side of respondent in this

case. I know the details of the case.

2. I am running a rice mill by name Nandhini Rice Mill at

Kulithalai road, Trichirappalli district. The petitioner and the

father of the respondent are my family friends for the past 20

years. In that way, the petitioner and the father of the

respondent are my family friends. Between the petitioner

and the respondent married was performed on 05.09.2010.

Both of them were residing at the house of the parents of the

petitioner at Manapparai. In such situation, problems arose

then and there. In the meantime, about 2 years ago, when

both of them were living at Manapparai, the respondent called

 21

me over cellphone and had stated that the petitioner is

refusing to send her to Karaikal for her study, that the family

members of the petitioner had detained the respondent at

home stating that she should not go to Karaikal for her study,

that for that purpose a complaint was given before police and

she is in All Women Police Station at Manapparai and asked to

bring her from police station. Accordingly when I have gone

to Manapparai All Women Police station, they have enquired

on both sides and sent the respondent with me. I brought her

and sent her to Karaikal, to her parents'home. My Aadhaar

card is Ex.P.3.

Therefore I request that this Hon'ble Court may be

pleased to accept my chief examination in the proof affidavit

filed by me and to pass further or other orders as this Hon'ble

Court deem fit and proper and thus render justice.

solemnly affirm that all the particulars

stated as above are true, read over and

signed at Manapparai on 19.01.2023 2nd witness on the

before me. side of the

respondent

***
 22

Hon'ble Sub Court

Manapparai
H.M.O.P.No. 14 of 2019
R. Sathiskumar .. Petitioner /husband
versus
Sudha (a) Kaviarasi .. Respondent /wife

Rajendran .. 2nd witness

on the side of
petitioner
Proof Affidavit filed by the 2nd witness on the side of the

petitioner

I, Rajendran, son of Balusamy Naidu, Indian, Hindu aged

about 70, residing at Door No.66, South Lakshmipuram,

Viralimalai road, Kannudaiyanpatti village, Manapparai taluk,

Trichy district do hereby solemnly affirmed as follows :

1. I am 2nd witness on the side of the petitioner. The

petitioner is my son. The respondent is my daughter-in-law.

2. The petitioner and respondent in this petition are

husband and wife. Between the petitioner and the respondent,

on 05.09.2010 at Karuna Marriage Hall, Mayas Hotel,

Chathiram Bus stand, Trichy district, as per Hindu rites and as

per our custom, with the consent of both parties, upon

printing marriage invitation, in the presence of the important

persons and elder members of both houses marriage was

performed. The above said marriage was registered as per

Hindu Marriages Act.

 23

3. After the performance of the marriage, the petitioner

and the respondent have been living happily at our house at

Manapparai, as joint family for a period of one year.

Thereafter, due to wedlock of the petitioner and the

respondent, when the respondent was conceived, at 7th

month, baby shower was performed, and the petitioner had

brought the respondent for delivery at her parents' home at

Karaikal. Thereafter, the respondent delivered a female child

by name Nishika, on 12.07.2011. Thereafter, my son

petitioner had gone and seen the respondent and the child

and when he requested to send them alongwith him, the

respondent and her parents have stated that they will send

them subsequently. Thereafter, though my son petitioner,

had several times, asked the respondent to go with the

petitioner at Manapparai, the respondent, without any reason,

did not live with the petitioner jointly, and arbitrarily was

living at her parents' home.

4. In this situation, after the birth of the child, the

respondent was living with her father at Karaikal, and had

stated that she is not interested to live with the petitioner.

Thereafter, though the petitioner talked with the respondent

peacefully and by compulsion brought her to Deepavali and

Pongal festivals, as soon as the festivals are over, the

respondent used to go to her parents' home at Karaikal.

Subsequently, myself, petitioner and important persons and

our relatives have gone to Karaikal and talked with

 24

respondent peacefully and brought her. Within one or two

weeks of her return, the respondent, without informing either

to petitioner or with us, had gone to her relatives houses, for

the festive occasions like marriage. Then and there, the

respondent, having come to our house, had taken her jewels

and sarees and her holdings. When she was returning, having

taken all her belongings, she used not to inform anything

either to my son /petitioner or to me.

5. In this situation, in the year 2013, the petitioner got

job at Chennai. Thereafter, the petitioner had gone to the

residence of the parents of the respondent at Karaikal, that he

requested the respondent to come and live with him, that he

compelled, that he had stated that he will bring her to

Chennai, the respondent refused to go with him. Thereafter,

after a period of one month, again myself, the petitioner and

our relatives have gone to Karaikal and talked with the

respondent to live with the petitioner peacefully, the

respondent and the parents of the respondent had informed

with me and the petitioner, that if she has to live with my son

petitioner, the petitioner has to be lived at their house as

house groom at his marital home. The petitioner firmly had

denied that he cannot live at their house as house groom at

marital home. Thereafter, though we have taken several steps

that the respondent shall live with the petitioner there was no

anvil, that though myself, my son and our relatives, had

talked to the respondent and her parents peacefully, the

 25

above said respondent without having any reason, having

avoided to live with the petitioner jointly, arbitrarily, she has

been living at her parents' home.

Therefore, I humbly pray this Hon'ble Court to accept my

proof affidavit and to order and thus render justice.

Stating that all the above said facts are true, on

22.03.2022 at Manapparai, had signed in my presence.

Advocate.

**
 26

Hon'ble Sub Court

Manapparai
H.M.O.P.No. 14 of 2019
R. Sathiskumar
son of Rajendran,
No.67, South Lakshmipuram,
Viralimalai road, Manapparai taluk,
Trichy District .. Petitioner /husband
versus
1.Sudha (a) Kaviarasi .. Respondent /wife
wife of S.Sathiskumar,
18, Mathur road, Sethur post,
Karaikal district
Pondicherry

Written arguments submitted on the side of the

petitioner

1. The petitioner, has filed the main petition against the

respondent under Section 13(1)(1-a) of Hindu Marriages Act,

1955. On the side of the petitioner, the petitioner was

examined as P.W.1 and the father of the petitioner was

examined as P.W.2. Similarly, on the side of the respondent,

the respondent was examined as D.W.1 and 2 exhibits were

filed. Parry, a 3rd party, was examined as D.W.2.

2. Between the petitioner and the respondent, on

5.9.2010, marriage was solemnized at Karuna marriage hall,

at Mayas hotel, Chathiram Bus stand, Trichy district, as per

Hindu rites and custom, with the consent of both sides, and

upon printing marriage invitation, in the presence of

important persons and elders. The petitioner and the

respondent, owing to wedlock are having a daughter by name

Nishika, aged 12. After having given birth to the child, the
 27

respondent is living with her parents at Karaikal, and she is

not having interest to live with the petitioner. The petitioner

talked with the respondent peacefully and by compulsion

brought the respondent to Deepavali and Pongal festivals,

but, the respondent used to go to her parents' home at

Karaikal as soon as the festivals are over.

3. Further the petitioner, parents of the petitioner and

important persons and relatives have gone to Karaikal several

time and talked with respondent peacefully and brought her

and had been living, the respondent used to be there for one

or two weeks only, and on her return to her parents' house,

used to take her jewels and sarees and her holdings and at

that time, she used not to inform anything either to the

petitioner or to the parents of the petitioner.

4. Thereafter, when the respondent, and the parents of

the respondent compelled the petitioner to live at their house

as house groom at his marital home, that the petitioner firmly

had denied that he cannot live at their house as house groom

at marital home, in that situation, the respondent had stated

that she cannot live with the petitioner. Thereafter, though the

petitioner had taken several steps to live with the

respondent, since there was no anvil, and the respondent

without having any reason, having avoided to live with the

petitioner jointly, and arbitrarily, she has been living with her

parents' home. Because of that, when the petitioner had

talked with respondent to live jointly and when the said

 28

reconciliation was not concluded, on 10.07.2018, through

advocates, he had sent notice praying to jointly live with him.

Having acknowledged the same, the respondent, without

taking into consideration that she shall live jointly with the

petitioner and the future prospects of the child, stating false

reasons, had sent a reply. In this situation, the petitioner had

no other option, except filing this case.

5. When the respondent was cross examined mainly, on

the side of the petitioner, when she had given evidence to the

effect, that it is correct to state that the petitioner had

studied Hotel management, that it is correct to state that

through Raja, who is running Nandhini Rice mill at Manaparai,

the marriage arrangements had taken place, that it is correct

to state that between Raja and his father are having business

relations and that it is not correct to state that since the

petitioner had studied less compared to her, though she had

not accepted for the marriage at that time itself,

subsequently, her parents and Nandhini Rice Mill Raja,

compromised her and made her to accept and when she had

given to that effect, in such situation, it is clearly seen that the

respondent had studied PhD. that since the petitioner had

studied lesser, from the beginning, without liking the

petitioner, that her parents, relatives, rice mill Raja made

compelled to accept the marriage, that without interest in the

marriage, the respondent, without liking the petitioner, on her

own, as she likes, had been living.

 29

6. Further, when the respondent was cross examined

mainly, on the side of the petitioner, when she had given

evidence to the effect, that it is correct to state that the

petitioner is the only son to his parents, that because of that,

it is correct to state that after the marriage, at Manappari, I

was living with my mother-in-law and father-in-law, that it is

correct to state that at the time of marriage, on the side of the

petitioner's house, I was provided with 11 sovereigns of jewels

inclusive of sacred Thali chain, and jewels, that it is correct to

state that after marriage, while I was living with my father-in-

law and mother-in-law, my husband was working at Le

Meridien hotel at Chennai, that it is correct to state that after I

was conceived, my parents, in good manner, had arranged

baby shower function and they had brought her to her

parents' house, that it is correct to state that when I was

admitted at the hospital, information was passed on to my

husband and he too, immediately had come and when she

had given evidence in such a way, in such situation, it is

clearly seen that the petitioner and petitioner's parents have

looked after the respondent in a good manner.

7. Further, when the respondent was cross examined

mainly, on the side of the petitioner, when she had given

evidence to the effect, that it is correct to state that I belong

to Hindu religion, that it is correct to state that as per Hindu

custom, after one month of birth of the child only, having

performed the function of "punniyathanam" only, the child will

 30

be named, that it is not correct to state that I only was so

adamant stating that I have to study Ph.D. I had been at my

parents' house, that if it is asked, my father-in-law and her

husband had gone in the year 2018 and asked her to come

and live with them jointly, the answer is that they have called,

that it is not correct to state that "I have compelled my

husband to live at my parents' house as house groom at their

house", that if it is asked that after having admitted the child

in the school, that after paying the fees, without sending the

child to the said school, that I was brought to Karaikal, the

answer is that they have asked me to work as a teacher in

that school, that if it is asked that from the date of marriage

till 2016, compared to the days which I was living at

Manapparai, the days I had been living at Karaikal is more,

and that when she had given evidence to the effect that she

had been living here and there, and in such situation, it is

clearly seen that the respondent without liking the petitioner

and his parents, that when she had been studying at higher

level, in violation of the customary rites as a Hindu wife, she

had been living at her will and pleasure.

8. Further, when the respondent was cross examined

mainly, on the side of the petitioner, when she had given

evidence to the effect that it is correct to state that in the year

2018, the petitioner had sent a notice asking me to come and

live with him, that it is not correct to state that even after the

sending of notice, without any reason, since I had been living

 31

separately from my husband, such a petition had been filed,

that I am his wife and that it is not correct to state that I have

had compelled him to come and live as house groom at his

marital home.

9. That when she had given evidence to the effect that

the jewels given by my parents are with me, and that it is

correct to state that I am now living happily and safely at

Karaikal, and in such situation, it is clearly seen that she is

neglecting the petitioner that she is refusing to live with him,

and that she cannot live with the petitioner hereinafter.

Further it is also clearly seen that there are sufficient means

at the parents of the respondent house so that the respondent

can live.

10. Further, when the respondent was cross examined

mainly, on the side of the petitioner, when she had given

evidence to the effect that it is correct to state that till this

day, to live jointly with the petitioner, I have not sent any

complaint, notice or petition, that if it is asked that when

counselling was made between us, that though we have

accepted to live joint together, I have not gone to live with

him, the answer is that the petitioner on that day itself, asked

me to come with him, that I have told him that since an

operation had been performed on my mother, I would come

later that in such situation, the fact that though he happened

to be a good husband to his wife and had performed his family

duties in grand manner, on the other hand, the respondent,

 32

without performing duties as a good wife, that without any

reasons, arbitrarily, she has left the petitioner and had been

living separately causes heavy mental agony to the petitioner.

But, it is clearly seen that the petitioner without continuing in

his married life in the society, because of the acts of the

respondent, the petitioner is subjected to mental agony.

11. That in the situation that the petitioner is the only

son to his parents, and when the respondent had compelled

the petitioner to come and live at the house of his parents -in-

law, the petitioner is having the duty and responsibility to

maintain his mother and father. Further that when the

respondent had stated at Court that instead of living with the

petitioner at Manapparai, to live with her mother at Karaikal is

only her safety and happiness, it is clearly seen that the

respondent had not taken any proceedings or efforts to live

with the petitioner and to lead a married life. It is seen that

the actions of the respondent will show that the respondent is

having the adamant attitude that she should not live with the

petitioner and divorce also should not be awarded.

Therefore, it is humbly prayed taking into consideration

the written arguments filed on the side of the petitioner, upon

perusing the statement, evidence and exhibits on the side of

the petitioner, that this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to pass

decree and judgment to annul the marriage which had been

solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on

5.9.2010 and thus render justice.

 33

***
 34

IN THE COURT OF Hon'ble Sub Court,MANAPPARAI

H.M.O.P.No. 14/2019
R.Sathiskumar .. Petitioner / husband
versus
Sudha (a) Kavi Arasi .. Respondent / wife
Proof affidavit filed by the
petitioner (P.W.1)
R.Sathiskumar, son of P. Rajendra Naidu, Indian, Hindu,

aged about 37 years, residing at Door No.67, South

Lakshmipuram, Viralimalai road, Kannudaiyanpatti village,

Manapparai taluk, Trichy district, solemnly affirm and

sincerely state as follows :

1. I am the petitioner in the original petition. The

respondent is my wife.

2. Myself and the respondent in this case, are husband

and wife. I am now permanently residing at Door No.67,

South Lakshmipuram, Viralimalai road, Kannudaiyanpatti

village, Manapparai taluk, Trichy district. The copy of my

aadhar card is filed as Exhibit 1 on my side.

3. The marriage between myself and the respondent was

solemnized at Karuna Mahal, Hotel Mayas, Chatram bus stand,

Trichirappalli, on 05.09.2010 in the presence of elders,

relatives and friends of both sides, by printing marriage

invitation. The said marriage was registered under the

provisions of Hindu Marriages act. The said marriage

registration certificate, and the marriage invitation Original

and the copies of the photo taken at the time of marriage, by

 35

myself and the respondent are filed as exhibits 2,3,4 and 5 on

my side.

4. That after the performance of marriage, both myself

and respondent have been living at Manapparai as joint family

along with my parents. Thereafter, owing to the wedlock of

myself and the respondent, at the time of pregnancy of the

respondent at the 7th month, baby shower was performed,

and I have brought the respondent for delivery at her parents'

home at Karaikal. Thereafter, on 12.07.2011, the respondent

gave birth to a female child by name Nishika. Thereafter, I

have seen the respondent and the child and asked them to

send the respondent and the child with me, the respondent

and her parents had stated that they will send at later time.

Thereafter, though I have asked the respondent to come with

me to Manaparai, the respondent, without having any reason,

and without living with me jointly, arbitrarily, had been living

at her parents' home itself.

5. In this situation, the respondent, after the child was

born, she had been living at her parents' home at Karaikal and

had stated to me that she is not interested to live me.

Thereafter, though I have talked with the respondent

peacefully and by compulsion brought her to Deepavali and

Pongal festivals, as soon as the festivals are over, she used to

go to her parents' home at Karaikal. Subsequently, myself,

petitioner and important persons and our relatives have gone

to Karaikal and talked with respondent peacefully and brought

 36

her. Within one or two weeks of her return, the respondent,

without informing either to me or with us, had gone to her

relatives houses, for the festive occasions like marriage. Then

and there, the respondent, having come to our house, had

taken her jewels and sarees and her holdings. When she was

returning, having taken all her belongings, she used not to

inform anything either to me or to my parents.

6. In this situation, in the year 2013, I job at Chennai.

Thereafter, I had gone to the residence of the parents of the

respondent at Karaikal, and requested the respondent to

come and live with me and I have also stated that I will bring

her to Chennai. But the respondent refused to go with me I

have returned from there. Thereafter, after a period of one

month, again myself, my parents and our relatives have gone

to Karaikal and talked with the respondent to come and live

with me peacefully, the respondent and the parents of the

respondent had informed to me and the petitioner, that if she

has to live with you, you have to live there at our house as

house groom and they have no objection to it and I have

firmly had denied that I cannot live at their house as house

groom at marital home. Thereafter, though I have taken

several steps so that the respondent shall live with me there

was no anvil, and through my parents and our relatives,

though talked to the respondent and her parents peacefully,

the above said respondent without having any reason, having

 37

avoided to live with me jointly, and arbitrarily, she has been

living with her parents' home.

7. In this situation, since the respondent, along with her

parents,

without living with me, and arbitrarily she has been living,

and though

I have talked compromise with respondent and the parents of

the respondent, without having interest to live with me, from

the year 2013 for more than 5 years, without having any

reason and having no interest to come and live with me, she

had caused mental agony to me and avoided me and she has

been living arbitrarily.

8. I, after having married the respondent, though I have

performed my duties as a good husband to the respondent,

the respondent as a wife, had not performed her duties as a

dutiful wife, she has been living arbitrarily.

9. Since I myself and the respondent are living

separately, and though I have taken several steps to live with

the respondent and when they have not yielded any result,

without no other option, through advocate, on 10.07.2018 I

have issued a notice to the respondent to come an live with

me. Though the respondent acknowledged the said notice,

with false allegations, and contradictory allegations, had sent

a reply notice. I have filed my notice and the reply notice as

Exs. P.6 and P.7 on my side. Further since a situation arises

that I cannot live with the respondent jointly hereinafter, I

 38

have been compelled to file this divorce petition. I declare that

there is no secret agreement or arrangement between myself

and the respondent to file the above said petition. I further

assure that except this petition, between myself and the

respondent, any petition or case pertaining to the marriage

between myself and the respondent is pending before any

Court. Since I, the petitioner, am residing within the

jurisdiction of this Court, it becomes just and necessary to file

this petition before this Court.

10. Since for the reason that I and the respondent are

living separately, and though I have taken several steps to live

with the respondent and when they have not yielded any

result, and time had elapsed, and since without any other

option, I cannot live with the respondent jointly, I am

compelled to file the above said petition praying for divorce.

11. The allegations set out by the respondent in her

counter are all false. I have totally denied the allegations set

out in the counter.

Therefore I humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court to accept

my petition filed by me and to annul the marriage that was

solemnized on 05.09.2010 between myself and the

respondent and to grant the relief of divorce and to grant the

costs of this petition and pass such further or other reliefs as

this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the petition and thus render justice.

 39

Stating that all the above said facts are true, on

16.02.2021 at Manapparai, had signed in my presence.

Advocate.

Exhibits on the side of the petitioner:

1 Ex.P.1 Aadhar card of the petitioner

2 Ex.P.2 Wedding invitation

3 Ex.P.3 Registration copy of the marriage certificate

4 Ex.P.4 Copy of the photos showing that the petitioner

an and
d Ex.P.5 and the respondent have taken jointly during
5
marriage

6 Ex.P.6 10.07.2018 - office copy of the notice sent by

the petitioner through advocate

7 Ex.P.7 23.07.2018 - office copy of the reply notice

sent by the respondent through advocate

Advocate.

**
 40

Hon'ble Sub Court, Manapparai

Present : Thirumathi. L. Shakila, M.A.,M.L.,

Sub Judge, Manapparai

Tuesday, the 10th day of October, 2023

Hindu Marriage Original Petition No. 14 /2019

CNR No. TNTPIA - 000198 - 2019

(H.M.O.P.No. 229/18 on the file of the Principal Sub judge,
Tiruchirappalli)
R. Sathiskumar .. Petitioner / husband
versus
Sudha (a) Kavi Arasi .. Respondent / wife
This petition having taken on the file of Principal Sub

Court, Trichirappalli as Hindu Marriage Original Petition No.

229 /18 on 21.08.2018, that thereafter it was transferred to

this Court, that coming before this Court for final hearing on

12.09.2023 in the presence of Thiru V. Thirumoorthy, counsel

for the petitioner and of Thiru P. Muthukumar counsel for the

respondent, and upon perusing the written arguments filed on

both sides and upon hearing the arguments advanced on both

sides and upon perusing the exhibits and evidence, this Court

doth deliver the following :

JUDGMENT

This petition is filed under Section 13(1)(ib) of Hindu

Marriages Act praying to annul the marriage solemnized

between the petitioner and the respondent held on

05.09.2010 and to grant a decree of divorce.

 41

2. The brief facts of the case set out in the petition filed

by the petition are :

That the marriage between the petitioner and the

respondent was solemnized at Karuna Mahal, Hotel Mayas,

Chatram bus stand, Trichirappalli, on 05.09.2010, as per

Hindu custom with the consent of both parties. The above

said marriage was registered as per Hindu Marriages Act.

After the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent

have been living happily, with the petitioner's parents as a

joint family, at Manapparai for a period of one year.

Thereafter, due to wedlock of the petitioner and the

respondent, when the respondent was conceived, at 7th

month, baby shower was performed, and the petitioner had

brought the respondent for delivery at her parents' home at

Karaikal. Thereafter, the respondent gave birth to a female

child by name Nishika, on 12.07.2011. After the birth of the

child, the respondent, did not come and live with the

petitioner jointly, and arbitrarily was living at her parents'

home. Though the petitioner talked with the respondent

peacefully and by compulsion brought the respondent to

Deepavali and Pongal festivals, but, the respondent used to

go to her parents' home at Karaikal as soon as the festivals

are over. The respondent without informing to the petitioner

and his parents, used to go to the festivals of her relatives.

Then and there, she used to visit her marital home, and used

to take her jewels and sarees and her holdings. In this

 42

situation, in the year 2013, the petitioner got a job at

Chennai. Thereafter, he had gone to the residence of the

parents of the respondent at Karaikal, and requested the

respondent to come and live with him the respondent refused

to come with him. The respondent and the parents of the

respondent had informed to him that if the petitioner has to

live with the respondent, he has to come to Karaikal and has

to live there at their house groom. The petitioner has denied

it. The above said respondent was living with her parents

arbitrarily. From the year 2013 for more than 5 years, without

having any reason and having no interest to come and live

with the petitioner, the respondent had avoided the petitioner

and she has been living arbitrarily. Though the petitioner's

parents and relatives have taken several steps to live with the

respondent and they have not yielded any result. without no

other option, through advocate, on 10.07.2018 the petitioner

had issued a notice to the respondent to come and live with

him. Though the respondent acknowledged the said notice,

with false allegations, had sent a reply notice. Hence this

petition is filed praying to annul the marriage that was

solemnized on 05.09.2010 between the petitioner and the

respondent and to grant the relief of divorce.

3. The brief facts of the counter filed on the side of the

respondent are as follows :

The allegations set out in the petition by the petitioner

are wrong. After the marriage, the petitioner was living with
 43

the parents of the respondent at Manappari in a joint family.

Stating that he has to go to work, he had gone to Chennai.

The respondent, who had gone as stated above, will be

coming to Manappari for one or 2 days in a month and will be

returning to Chennai. When he came down to Manappari from

Chennai, on each occasion, though the petitioner requested

her to accompany her also to Chennai, the respondent has

refused to do so. Further, at the time of marriage, the parents

of the petitioner had given 11 sovereign of jewels (chain, ring,

bracelet and hip chain) to the respondent are all, at present,

with the respondent only and the sreedhana particles are all

with the petitioner's house at Manappari. In this situation, a

female child by name Nishika, the 2nd petitioner, was born to

the petitioner and the respondent and after a period of 3

months, when the respondent's side had not come to bring

the petitioner, leaving with no other option, the parents of the

petitioner had accompanied the petitioner and had gone to

the house of the respondent. To that, the respondent's

mother had quarrelled with the petitioner and her parents.

While the petitioner was living with her child at the house of

respondent at Manapparai, the respondent's mother

Usharani, put her under untold sadness, stating that the

expenses for meals and medical expenses of the child is

getting huge and as such asked the petitioner to get money

from her parents and in such a way the respondent's mother

treated her cruelly. Further on 13.01.2012, when the

 44

respondent had come on leave, upon the inducement of ill-

advise of his mother, having drunk, scolded the petitioner in

unparliamentarily words, that holding her hair had beaten her

and thus tortured her. That in the month of January, 2013,the

respondent, joined with his friend Prasad, consumed alcohol,

that he had fallen from the two wheeler, that he sustained a

fracture in his shoulder bone, that he was admitted at AGS

hospital, Manapparai and that for more than one month, the

petitioner had been looking at the respondent in a well

manner. Further the respondent, who is coming to house with

drunkenness, used to torture the petitioner without allowing

her to sleep and used to throw articles by hands and thus

caused injuries to the petitioner. As such, though the

petitioner sustained severe mental agony, considering her

future, with no other way to go, was living with the

respondent. Further, on 26.03.2013, the respondent having

returned having consumed brandy, had a quarrel with the

petitioner as to why she is feeding mother milk to the child,

and beat her causing blood shedding injuries to the petitioner

at her cheek and lips. The respondent who was at the peak

of drunkenness, at one point of time, attempted to cause

injury to the petitioner by scissors and that the respondent

had also attempted to stab the respondent 's father who

came there on hearing the shouting of the child. Later, when

the respondent's father had accompanied the petitioner to

Nazruddin hospital, for treatment to the bleeding injury, the

 45

respondent's father threatened the petitioner not to disclose

it to anybody. In this situation, on 28.03.2013, the respondent

and his parents called Selvaraj, the uncle (father's younger

brother) of the petitioner, and with him, they have sent the

petitioner by force. Thereafter, the respondent only, had gone

to Karaikal then and there and had seen the respondent as a

formality. Then at Arignar Anna Arts and Science College,

Karaikal, where the petitioner had studied Ph.D. got a job as

Guest Faculty. When the petitioner had informed the

respondent on 01.01.2017, the respondent had a quarrel with

the petitioner stating that she should hand over the entire

salary to him. Later, since the petitioner did not have time to

study Ph.D. in short passage of time, she left the said job.

Since the respondent has not provided any money towards

the food, cloth, medical expenses and other expenses either

to the petitioner or to her child, the petitioner is leading a

very difficult life. In this situation, in the month of May, 2018,

the respondent, his father had come to the residence of the

house of petitioner at Karaikal, compelled her that she should

come to Pondicherry and that she should look after a job and

hand over the salary to them. To that the petitioner had

stated that since she is undergoing PhD. and that after

completion of her studies, she would come, and though the

petitioner begged to great extent, the respondent and his

father had a quarrel and left. Thereafter, stating false

allegations and reasons and with the inducement of his

 46

parents, the respondent had sent a legal notice on 10.07.2018

to the petitioner. To that, on 23.07.2018 the petitioner with

proper explanations, through her lawyer, had sent a reply

letter. Since the petitioner's Ph.D. degree course is going to

be completed in 6 months' time, she is willing to live with the

respondent, thereafter. Similarly, the respondent is interested

that the petitioner has to stop the habit of consumption of

liquor, and without any quarrel, has to live happily. Hence the

petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The issue to be decided in this petition is, whether the

petitioner's petition praying to annul the marriage solemnized

between the petitioner and the respondent on 05.09.201 has

to be allowed?

5. On the side of the petitioner, the petitioner was

examined as P.W.1. Rajendran was examined as P.W.2. On

the side of the petitioner, Exs. P.1 to P.7 were marked. On the

side of the respondent, the respondent was examined as

D.W.1. Pari was examined as D.W.2. On the side of the

respondent, exhibits R.1 and R.2 were marked.

6. The petitioner Sathiskumar, has filed this petition

praying to annul the marriage solemnised between the

petitioner and the respondent on 05.09.2010, and to grant

divorce. The respondent Sudha (a) Kavi Arasi, is the wife of

the petitioner. The facts that on 05.09.2010, between the

petitioner and the respondent a marriage was solemnized at

Karuna Mahal, Hotel Mayas, Chatram bus stand, Trichirappalli,

 47

and owing to the said wedlock, in the year 2011 a female child

Nishika was born to them and that at the time of marriage,

the petitioner was working at Chennai are admitted on both

sides.

7. That after the birth of a child to the respondent,

though the petitioner had called the respondent several times,

without any reasons therefor, without living together with

petitioner, arbitrarily she has been living at her parents'

house, that she has informed to the petitioner that she is not

interested to live with the petitioner, that then and there, she

used to go to the house of the petitioner only to take away her

jewels and sarees, that in the year 2013, when the petitioner

had got a job at Chennai, though the petitioner called the

respondent to bring her to Chennai, the respondent refused to

go with him, that the respondent and her parents had stated

that if he has to live with the respondent, they have asked

him to come as house groom at their home, that though the

respondent and his parents have spoken many times to the

petitioner's parents about compromise, the respondent

without having interest to live with the respondent, from the

year 2013 for more than 5 years, without any reason, she

avoided the petitioner arbitrarily and had been living

separately, that though the petitioner had issued a notice

through advocate on 10.07.2018, the respondent stating

facts contrary to truth had sent a reply notice, that at the

stage, when he was unable to live with the respondent

 48

hereinafter, in that situation, the petitioner has filed the

petition praying to grant divorce.

8. In the counter, it had been objected to that

after a female child was born, even after a period of 3 months,

as formality, since the petitioner's side had not accompanied

the respondent, the respondent along with the parents of the

respondent had gone to the house of the petitioner, to that,

the petitioner's mother had quarrelled with the respondent

and her parents, that stating that the expenses for meals and

medical expenses of the child is getting huge and as such

asked the respondent to get money from her parents and as

such, she treated her cruelly, the petitioner having drunk,

scolded the respondent in unparliamentarily words, that

holding her hair had beaten her and thus tortured her, that

without allowing her to sleep, he had thrown all the articles

which are available at his hands, and thus caused injuries to

the respondent, that at one point of time, holding scissors he

tried to stab the respondent that upon calling the uncle

(younger brother of the father) of the respondent and sent her

to her parents' house, that petitioner and his father compelled

the respondent, that she should earn by employment and to

give the salary to them, that later at the inducement of his

parents, the petitioner issued a lawyer's notice on 10.07.2018,

that to that on 23.07.2018, the respondent had sent an

objection notice to it, that though the petitioner and his

parents have tortured to great extent, with the fond hope that
 49

on any of the day, her husband will get changed, and

considering the future of the child, the respondent is

interested to live with the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had

argued that having got a job at Chennai, though the petitioner

called, the respondent refused to go and live with him, that

though he had talked compromise with the respondent and

her parents several times, from the year 2013 for more than 5

years, without any reason, the respondent hatred and avoided

the petitioner, and had been living arbitrarily, that in the year

2018, though the petitioner had issued a notice to the

respondent, without any reason, she is living separately and

that hereafter also, there is no possibility for the petitioner to

live jointly with the respondent.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent had

argued that having drunk, scolded the respondent in

unparliamentarily words, that holding her hair had beaten her

and thus tortured her, that without allowing her to sleep and

used to throw articles by hands and thus caused injuries to

the respondent at one point of time, attempted to cause

injury to the respondent by scissors and though the

respondent and his parents have tortured to great extent,

with the fond hope that on any day her husband will be

changed, and considering her child's future, she wants to live

with the petitioner. Further, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent had stated that the petitioner, from the year 2013,
 50

without any reason, the respondent is avoiding the petitioner,

arbitrarily living separately, that stating so, when a petition

had been filed under Section 13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriages Act,

on the ground of desertion, in such a situation, the petitioner

himself had stated in his cross examination, that in the year

2013, when accident was happened to her, only the

respondent was looking after him, that in the year 2014, when

her child's ear boring function was celebrated, the

respondent had come, that in the month of November, 2017,

to file the project for her wife, he and his wife had gone, that

in the year 2017, when his father's sister-in-law (elder

brother's wife) was died, the family members of the

respondent had attended and had done proper sreethana

property, that in the month of August, 2017 along with the

respondent, had been staying at Mamallapuram in a hotel,

that when it had been admitted that after filing of this case,

from the month of June, 2020 to October, the respondent was

living with him, the prayer of divorce cannot be granted on

the ground of desertion.

11. The reason stated by the petitioner for the prayer of

divorce, is as follows :

From the year 2013, the respondent, without any reason,

and without performing the duties that a wife have to

perform, she had been living separately.

12. The respondent is refusing the complaint made

against her. On the side of the petitioner, he was examined as

 51

P.W.1. Rajendran was examined as P.W.2. On the side of the

petitioner, the copy of the aadhar card of the petitioner was

marked as Ex.P.1, that the marriage invitation of the

marriage, performed between the petitioner and the

respondent is marked as Ex.P.2, that the marriage registration

certificate is marked as Ex.P.3, photos which had been taken

at the time of marriage are marked as Exs. P.4 and p.5, that

on 10.07.2018, when the petitioner had sent a notice through

lawyer is marked as Ex.P.6, that on 23.07.2018 through

advocate, the respondent sent a reply notice is marked as

Ex.P.7. On the side of the respondent, the respondent was

examined as D.W.1. Parry was examined as D.W.2. Exhibits

D.1 and D.2 were marked. The birth certificate of Nishika,

born between the petitioner and the respondent is marked as

Ex.D.1, the birth certificate of the child Nishika is marked as

Ex.D.2.

13. The petitioner had filed this petition under Section

13(1)(1b) of Hindu Marriages Act stating that the respondent,

from the year 2013, without any reasons, had been living

separately from the petitioner, without doing the duties that

of a wife. Under Section 13(1)(1b) of Hindu Marriages Act, it

has been stated as follows :

" when the respondent has deserted the

petitioner for a continuous period of not less

than two years immediately preceding the

presentation of the petition.."

 52

The petitioner has filed this petition in the year 2018. In

that situation, the petitioner has to prove the fact that from

the year 2016, the respondent has been living separately,

without any reasons.

14. On the side of the petitioner, when he had filed a

petition stating that from the year 2013, the respondent has

been living separately, the petitioner in his cross -

examination, had admitted as follows :

P.W.1 cross examination :

..It is correct to state that in the year 2014,ear boring

function of my daughter was performed at Palani. If it is

asked for the said ear boring function, my parents and

relatives, about 30 persons have come, the answer is that

they have come. If it is asked whether the respondent has

come to the said ear-bore function, the answer is that she has

come. It is correct to state that in the month of November,

2017, to Coimbatore, to submit the project of my wife, myself

and wife had gone. If it is asked, that in the year 2017, when

my father's sister-in-law (father's elder brother's wife) had

died, whether the family members of my wife had come, the

answer is that they have come. If it is asked that at that time,

whether my wife's family members had done the seer to be

done by them, the answer is that they have done. If it is

stated that in the year 2017, in the month of August, at

Mahabalipuram Raddison Hotel, in another hotel, I have

brought my wife and stayed there for 2 days. It is correct to

 53

state that after filing of this case, from June, 2020 to October,

my wife was living with me. If it is stated through cell phone,

both myself and my wife are speaking from the date of

marriage upto 2018 we used to talk with each other, the

answer is that mostly I have talked to her in large number.

15. Further the petitioner, in support of his case, he had

examined P.W.2 his father. P.W.2 in his cross examination

had admitted as follows :

P.W.2. Cross examination :

He had stated that ".. If it is stated that my daughter-in-law

had been in my house, from June, 2020 for a period of 8

months, the answer is that she was there. . If it is stated that

from the date of marriage, till 2018, my daughter-in-law had

been in our house only, the answer is that then and there, she

will go out..."

16. When the petitioner, in his petition had stated that

from the year 2013, for the past 5 years, the respondent has

been living separated from him, in such situation, the

petitioner and his witness had stated in their evidence, that

before and after filing the petition, the respondent had been

living with the petitioner jointly, that they seem to be

contradictory to one another, and it is not helping the

petitioner in any way.

17. The respondent in her counter had stated that

considering the future of her and her daughter, till now, she

has not filed any police complaint. The petitioner also, in his
 54

cross examination also admitted that till this day, his wife had

not given any complaint before any police station, under

prohibition of dowry, either against him or against his parent

and that she had not filed any case before any Court. In this

situation, the argument put forward on the side of the

respondent, that since the respondent was willing to live with

the petitioner, she has not taken any action against him, is an

acceptable one.

18. When under Secion13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriages Act,

it had been stated that prior to filing of the petition for

divorce, either of the party, for a continuous period of not less

than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the

petition, should have deserted, and in such situation, the

petitioner, who has filed the petition praying for divorce in the

above said provision of Act, and his evidence in their evidence

in cross examination, had admitted that prior and after the

presentation of the petition, both the petitioner and the

respondent had been living jointly. The respondent also in her

counter and evidence had stated that she is having the desire

to live with the petitioner jointly.

19. That as far as this case is concerned, the man and

the woman, on their own, willingly, to save the good will being

kept on their family members and on the society, living

together is the best living method. Though marriage had

taken place between the petitioner and the respondent on

05.09.2010, the petitioner had stated that from 2013, the

 55

respondent has been living separately, without any reason.

He had mentioned at any place that prior to that period, there

was any problem between them. Further, the petitioner

himself in his evidence had stated that prior and after the

filing of the petition, he had been living with the respondent.

In this situation, instead of finding out a solution to that issue,

if it is started that divorce is the only solution, in such

situation, a situation will arise that 30% of the married couple

will give divorce. In the situation when he is accusing the

respondent that from the year 2013, without any reason, she

has been living separately, on the contrary to it, the

petitioner, in his evidence, had given evidence that he and the

respondent had been living jointly, prior and after the filing of

the petition, the prayer sought for divorce by the petitioner to

annul the marriage, this Court holds that the petitioner is not

entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

20. In the result, holding that the petitioner, who is

praying to annul the marriage which had been solemnized

between the petitioner and the respondent on 05.09.2010, is

not entitled to get the said relief, this petition is dismissed.

No costs.

This judgment was dictated to the steno - typist, that it

was typed by him directly in computer, corrected by me and

pronounced by me on 10.09.2023 in Open Court.

sd/-Sub Judge,
Manapparai.
Annexure :
 56

Witnesses on the side of the petitioner :

P.W.1 - R.Sathiskumar (petitioner)
P.W.2 - Rajendran
Exhibits on the side of the petitioner :
1 Ex.P.1 Aadhar card of the petitioner

2 Ex.P.2 Wedding invitation

3 Ex.P.3 Registration copy of the marriage certificate

4 Ex.P.4 Copy of the photos showing that the petitioner

an and
d Ex.P.5 and the respondent have taken jointly during
5
marriage

6 Ex.P.6 10.07.2018 - office copy of the notice sent by

the petitioner through advocate

7 Ex.P.7 23.07.2018 - office copy of the reply notice

sent by the respondent through advocate

Witnesses on the side of the respondent :

D.W.1 - Sudha (a) Kavi Arasi (respondent
D.W.2 - Paari
Exhibits on the side of the respondent :
Ex.D.1 Birth certificate of Nishika, born to the petitioner

and the respondent

Ex.D.2 School certificate of child Nishika.

sd/-Sub Judge,
Manapparai
***
 57

Hon'ble Sub Court, Manapparai

Present : Thirumathi. L. Shakila, M.A.,M.L.,

Sub Judge, Manapparai

Tuesday, the 10th day of October, 2023

Hindu Marriage Original Petition No. 14 /2019

CNR No. TNTPIA - 000198 - 2019

(H.M.O.P.No. 229/18 on the file of the Principal Sub judge,

Tiruchirappalli)

R. Sathiskumar, son of B. Rajendran Naidu,

aged about 37 years, residing at No.67, South
Lakshmipuram, Viralimalai road, Kannudaiyanpatti,
Manapparai taluk, Trichy district .. Petitioner
versus

Sudha (a) Kavi Arasi, wife of R.Sathiskumar,

aged about 34 years, residing at Ambakaratur,
Mathur road via, Sethur post 609601, Karaikal
district, Puducherry State .. Respondent

This petition is filed under Section 13(1)(ib) of Hindu

Marriages Act praying to annul the marriage solemnized

between the petitioner and the respondent held on

05.09.2010 and to grant a decree of divorce.

This petition was taken on file under Section 13(1)(ib) of

Hindu Marriages Act, on 21.08.2018. Fee of Rs.24/- is paid on

the petition. Cause of action for the suit arose on the dates

of 05.09.2010, 12.07.2011, 10.07.2018 and on 23.07.2018 at

Manapparai taluk, Trichy district.

 58

This petition having taken on the file of Principal Sub

Court, Trichirappalli as Hindu Marriage Original Petition No.

229 /18 on 21.08.2018, that thereafter it was transferred to

this Court, that coming before this Court for final hearing on

12.09.2023 in the presence of Thiru V. Thirumoorthy, counsel

for the petitioner and of Thiru P. Muthukumar counsel for the

respondent, and upon perusing the written arguments filed on

both sides and upon hearing the arguments advanced on both

sides and upon perusing the exhibits and evidence, this Court

doth deliver the following :

DECREE

In the result, holding that the petitioner, who is praying

to annul the marriage which had been solemnized between

the petitioner and the respondent on 05.09.2010, is not

entitled to get the said relief, this petition is dismissed. No

costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on 10th

day of October, 2023.

sd/- Sub Judge,10/10/23

Manapparai.