The burden lies on the petitioner to establish the case, and the court should assess the evidence cumulatively, not relying on isolated instances.

(Prayer: Appeal filed against the order dated 16.4.2004 made in F.C.O.P.No.1272 of 2000 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.

This is an appeal filed by the wife questioning the decree of annulment of marriage granted by the lower court in the petition filed by the petitioner-husband, who is the respondent herein. The husband filed the petition for annulment of marriage on the ground that the wife was suffering from irregular menstruation, which fact was suppressed at the time of marriage; and as the marriage was not consummated, he was subjected to mental agony and cruelty.

2. The case of the respondent herein, as set out in the original petition filed by him, is as follows:

The marriage of the petitioner/husband with the respondent/wife took place on 5.6.1998 at Uthukottai, Periapalayam according to Hindu rites and customs. At that time, the respondent/wife was employed at Sriharikotta as a Probationer and she used to come to petitioner's house once in a week. The respondent/wife was not interested in marital obligation and was very adamant and the marriage was not consummated. The respondent/wife used to have menstruation once in four or six months and the fact was suppressed by her at the time of marriage. The respondent/wife was also taken to Doctor for treatment by the mother of petitioner/husband, but she refused to co-operate and take medicines. Even after setting up a separate residence, the marriage was not consummated and she forcibly entered into his parent's house and is staying there. As the marriage was not consummated and the behaviour and conduct of the respondent/wife caused him mental agony and cruelty, the petitioner/husband filed the original petition.

3. The respondent/wife, who is the appellant herein, resisted the petition contending, inter alia, that the petitioner/husband and his family were not satisfied with the dowry given and were demanding more money, that the petitioner/husband himself told that they would have the sexual relationship after one year without saying any reason, that she was not allowed to sleep with the petitioner/husband by his mother, that she was never allowed to do any work for the petitioner/husband, that she was not allowed to write letters or even talk over phone to her parents, that the petitioner/husband is a drunkard who returns home very late in the nights, that she was ill-treated by the petitioner/husband and his relatives and that the allegation that she was staying in his parent's house is false and she is staying with her father now.

4. The lower Court, based mainly on the statement of the respondent/wife during the course of evidence that the marriage was not consummated till date, and finding that the respondent/wife had irregular menstruation and the respondent/wife has not complied with the marital obligation and thereby caused mental agony and cruelty to the petitioner/husband, held that the petitioner/husband is entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

5. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent/wife, who is the appellant herein. We perused the materials available on record and also heard Mr.R.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, who is the respondent herein. Learned counsel for the respondent herein tried to sustain the judgment of the lower Court by contending that it is clearly established from the evidence on record that the respondent/wife had irregular menstruation, that the respondent/wife has not complied with the marital obligation and thereby caused mental agony and cruelty to the petitioner/husband. He further contended that the consent of the petitioner/husband for the marriage had been obtained by wilful suppression of the above material facts relating to the respondent/wife and as such, the marriage is liable to be annulled.

6. The only point for consideration is whether the trial Court w