Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. THANGAVEL
D. Balakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
Pavalamani - Respondents
C.M.A. No. 827 of 1997
Decided On : 19 January 2001
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a husband (appellant) and wife (respondent) contesting a decree for divorce granted by the Family Court, Madurai, along with interim maintenance and litigation expenses (!) .
The marriage was solemnized on June 10, 1982, but was not consummated due to the husband's impotence, which was confirmed through medical examination (!) (!) (!) .
The wife alleged she was deserted by the husband from September 4, 1982, without any valid reason, and sought divorce and the return of articles including jewelry (!) .
The husband denied the allegations, claiming the wife refused to cohabit and threatened self-harm if forced to do so (!) .
Medical evidence established that the husband was impotent, and the wife was found physically and mentally normal, supporting her claim that the marriage was not consummated (!) (!) .
The Family Court found that the marriage was not consummated and that the husband was impotent, leading to the grant of a decree of divorce on the ground of non-consummation (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that the marriage was a voidable marriage under the relevant law, which can be annulled if it is proved that the marriage was not consummated due to impotence, even if the period for annulment had passed (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court confirmed the award of interim maintenance and litigation expenses, considering the husband's income and assets (!) (!) .
The respondent-wife sought permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the relevant Act. However, she did not file a specific application for permanent alimony during the proceedings (!) (!) .
The Court held that claims for permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 require an explicit application with details of income and property, and without such an application, the Court cannot grant permanent alimony (!) (!) .
The appeal was dismissed, and the Court reaffirmed that only an appropriate application with full particulars can lead to an order for permanent alimony or maintenance under the law (!) .
No order as to costs was made, and the appeal was dismissed (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
P. SATHASIVAM, J.
Husband is the appellant. Respondent-wife filed H.M.O.P. No. 94 of 1994 on the file of Family Court, Madurai for divorce under Ss. 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. By order dated 14-3-1997 the Family Court granted a decree for divorce and also directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 towards maintenance from the date of petition and Rs. 2,500.00 towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband has preferred the above appeal under S. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are briefly stated hereunder : According to the respondent-wife she was given in marriage to the appellant herein on 10-6-1982 and the same was celebrated at Pushpamandapam, New Colony, Madurai. She was taken to her husband's house at Usilampatti. She lived there for about three months. For the three months their marriage was not consummated. The husband did not have any sexual relationship with her during the three months when she stayed in his house. Thereafter, he took her to her mother's house at Madurai on 4-9-1982 agreeing to take her back after six months. Even after expiry of six months he did not take her to his house at Usilampatti. At her instance her brother approached him to take her back, but all the efforts have failed. She had been deserted by her husband without any valid reason from 4-9-1982, she filed the said petition for dissolution of marriage. She also claimed return of articles such as gold jewels etc. The marriage was not consummated as her husband was incompetent to consummate the marriage.
3. The appellant/husband has filed a counter-statement stating that the marriage was arranged by the elders. Even on the first night itself he was not allowed to touch her stating that the marriage was conducted against her wish. In view of her attitude he took her to her father's house. He denied all other allegations. The petition for divorce has been filed only to extract money and jewels from him.
4. The respondent-wife has also filed I.A. No. 133 of 1995 for amending her petition wherein she has prayed to include para 6-A saying that she did not have sexual intercourse during the stay with him since he is impotent. The husband has also filed additional counter-statement denying all the allegations made in the said petition.
5. Before the Court below wife has been examined as P.W. 1 and marked Exs. A.1 to A.3 in support of her claim. The husband has been examined as R.W. 1 and also marked Exs. B.1 and B.2 in support of his defence. C.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined as Court witnesses and Exs. C.1 and C. 2 were also marked as Court exhibits. The Court below after framing necessary points for consideration and after accepting the case of the wife, allowed her petition and granted decree for divorce. In the same order the Court has directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 towards maintenance from the date of petition as well as Rs. 2,500.00 towards litigation expenses, hence the present appeal by the husband.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as respondent.
7. The point for consideration is whether the respondent-wife is entitled to a decree of divorce as well as maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses? The respondent herein has filed H.M.O.P. No. 94 of 1994 before the Family Court at Madurai for divorce under Ss. 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is not disputed that the marriage took place on 10-6-1982 at Madurai. It is also not disputed that both the spouses were living in the house of the husband for about three months. It is the specific case of the wife that though she lived with her husband for three months, the marriage was not consummated. It is also specifically stated that her husband did not have sexual intercourse with her when she stayed in his home. He was evading on one or other pretext, since he is impotent. He never showe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
