The court clarified that parties before the Family Court can seek permission to engage a Counsel for legal assistance, and the Court has the discretion to allow such assistance in the interest of justice. The court also emphasized the importance of legal representation in matrimonial disputes and suggested the framing of a rule similar to Rule 37 of the Family Courts (Court) Rules, 1988, which provides for legal representation in Family Courts.

Abdul H adi, J.

.1. The husband has preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal against the dismissal of his O.P.No.876 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Principal Family Court, Madras by order dated 3 1. 7.1992. The said O.P. was filed for dissolution of marriage that took place on 28. 1987 between him and the respondent-wife, on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1) (i.a) and (i-b) respectively of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

2. Admittedly, both the spouses were living together till August, 1989, and thereafter they got separated. The original petition was filed on or about 23. 1. 1991.

3. The nature of alleged cruelty pleaded by the petitioner in the petition is briefly as follows:- The respondent refused to consummate the marriage on the nuptials day and on the following days, which caused great anxiety and mental strain to the petitioner. Even on the honey-moon days, there was no normal sexual life between the parties and there was no “willing and acceptable consummation of marriage on any occasion” and on every occasion there was only reluctance and attempt to avoid the fruit of marriage by not having issues. The respondent had never shown any improvement and it affected the health of the petitioner. Even on few occasions with great pursuation the petitioner had sexual intercourse she insisted that there should not be any “result” of such intercourse.

.4. As against the above allegations, the counter statement of the wife stated as follows:-

.The allegation that the respondent refused to consummate the marriage on the nuptials night is not correct. The petitioner’s mother advised both the petitioner and the respondent not to consummate the marriage on the nuptials night and warned them of the serious consequences. The petitioner’s mother said that since the respondent was forced to take some tablets for postponing her menstruation, she must abstain from intercourse for a few days as otherwise, in the event of conception, the child may suffer some severe physical handicap. It was this fear infused by the petitioner’s mother, that restrained both the petitioner and the respondent from having the normal sexual intercourse on the wedding night itself. There was no reluctance or non-co-operation on the part of the respondent to consummate the marriage and in fact during the honeymoon the marriage was happily consummated as by then the respondent had the menstruation over. The petitioner did not suffer any disappointment. He was quite happy and cheerful during the honey-moon trip. On all relevant occasions the spouses enjoyed conjugal happiness and it is absolutely false to state that the respondent was not amenable to normal sexual life.

5. On this aspect, the Court below has found that even on the face of evidence of P.W.1, the husband, in chief examination, the ground of cruelty has not been made out.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in his argument, mainly stressed the aspect of cruelty on the ground that the respondent refused to allow the petitioner to have sexual intercourse. But, it must be pointed out even at the outset that as P.W.1, the husband did not at all speak about any such cruelty. In fact there was no whisper about the abovesaid alleged refusal of the wife to allow the husband to have sexual intercourse with her. When we pointed out this aspect in the evidence of P.W.1, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to submit that the husband was not given the opportunity to examine himself further and speak about the abovesaid cruelty. But, we are unable to accept this contention. Not even such express ground has been taken in the memorandum of grounds. In this regard all that is stated in the grounds is that the learned Judge failed to record evidence in the manner the appellant deposed inspite of his protest throughout. If really fuller opportunity was not given for P.W.1 to depose, he could have filed a petition or memo seeking su