S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. In this application, the defendant seeks rejection of the plaint, under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter "CPC") on various grounds, such as the plaint not disclosing a cause of action, the suit being barred and so on.

2. The plaintiff has, in the suit, seeks the following reliefs:

a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from entering into or attempting to enter into or approach within 100 metres of the plaintiffs residence at F-1, Anand Niketan, New Delhi and from speaking to or approaching the Plaintiffs staff in any manner whatsoever;

b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from speaking with or addressing any written communication to the personnel associated with the Plaintiffs companies including Directors on any issue not relating to the respective companies;

c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from talking, threatening, addressing communications to the personnel associated with the Plaintiffs companies including the Directors on any issues relating to day to day affairs and operation of the respective companies;

d) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from addressing any communication to the Plaintiffs family members, relatives, friends, acquaintances or associates which are abusive to the Plaintiff and which cast aspersions on his character and which intrude and invade or tend to intrude or invade the Plaintiffs privacy or attempting to approach them and/or communicate with them for such purposes.

e) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from addressing any communication to the Plaintiffs family members, relatives, friends, acquaintances or associates which are abusive to the Plaintiff and which, in regard to the Plaintiff, intrude, invade upon and impose on their privacy, cast aspersions on their character and/or are derogatory to or defamatory to their reputation, prestige, esteem and standing in society or attempting to approach them and/or communicate with them for such purposes.

f) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from attempting to enter, attend and/or disrupt any social/private gathering hosted by the Plaintiff in a public or private place;

g) Restrain the Defendant, her servants, agents from in any manner interfering with or transferring, alienating and creating any third party interest or encumbering in any manner whatsoever Plaintiffs immovable and movable properties set out in paragraph 12 (q) above and

h) Pass such further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

.3. The plaint, rather prolix, avers about the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant, on 10-5-1978, according to Hindu rites; the birth of their two children-a daughter on 27-4-1984, and a son, on 12-2-1990. The plaintiff claims to have abided by his legal relationship with the defendant as a husband. He however alleges that the defendant has indulged in acts of cruelty which led to his leaving the matrimonial home, at 27 Akbar Road, New Delhi, and taking separate residence at F-1, Anand Niketan, New Delhi, on rent, after brief spells as a paying guest. He alleges to have stayed within the marriage relationship despite acts of cruelty by the defendant.

4. According to the plaint averments, the defendant has a tendency to keep control of all relationships and things, which resulted in her controlling his affairs and desiring that he acts according to her wishes. There is advertence to an incident of 15/16-5-1996 when she took exception to his visiting her cousin and having dinner with her, at Mumbai. Similarly, the defendants dislike and maltreatment of Ms. Leonara Coster, his elderly childhood governess, has been alleged. The plaintiff also refers to some incident which allegedly occurred in 1978 when his college friend called upon him, which led to hysterical behav