IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. KIRUBAKARAN, J.
Xxxxxx 'A'- Petitioner
vs.
Xxxxxx 'B' - Respondent
Tr.C.M.P.No.435 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Decided On : 05-08-2016
Xxxxx goes a good old Tamil proverb. Gone are the days when it was the order of the day. Is it possible to take the saying seriously and follow it, in letter and spirit? Exactly, that is what the respondent wants the petitioner to follow.
2. It is shameful to note that women, even toddlers are raped, and murdered; girls are killed shockingly due to one side love; women folk are teased and physically abused every day. Shockingly gang rapes are reported almost every part of India and recently a gang of dacoits raped a woman and her 14 year old minor daughter on 29.07.2016 on NH-01 in Bulandshahr District UP, by waylaying and dragging them out of their car. Crimes against women and girl children are atrociously increasing manifold day-by-day, creating an unsafe atmosphere for girl children and women in our country, which is glorified as our ‘Mother Land’. Similarly, crimes against women are equally committed in the name of ‘marriages’. Child marriages, denial to choose life partner and forced marriages against will, elderly men marrying young girls and celebrating marriages without even normal verification about the groom and his health condition, are a few illustrations of marital crimes, apart from other marital offences against women. This case is a classic illustration as to how marriages are being conducted suppressing the weaknesses/diseases/inability of the prospective spouse.
3."The trip was a nightmare, not a honeymoon", pleads the petitioner, an unfortunate young lady, who has moved the Family Court for annulling the marriage dated 13.11.2014, within 6 months from the date of marriage. The petitioner and respondent are well educated. The petitioner herein contends that respondent married her on 13.11.2014. On the date of marriage itself, the respondent's movements were limited and he could not move his legs freely. Later, it came to be found that there was a huge wound measuring 4 x 1 inches on the respondent's left thigh. When the respondent was asked about that , he replied that there was a boil on his left thigh and it got burst oozing pus in the Dhothi worn by him. Due to the aforesaid circumstances, the marriage could not be consummated. Physical relationship was avoided by the respondent on that day stating that he already made arrangements for the honeymoon at Kulu Manali and the first night could be held there.
4. The petitioner states that, the trip was a nightmare to the petitioner as pus was oozing out of the wound during the trip. On return, the respondent consulted a skin specialist at Apollo Hospital, who advised immediate hospitalization and removal of the infected area by surgery. He was admitted in the Apollo Hospital on 25.11.2014 for surgery. Pre-Surgery investigations shocked and surprised the petitioner as the investigations revealed that the respondent has a hole in his heart. The said medical problem was found, even when the respondent was young and the same was suppressed by the respondent and his family members from the petitioner and her family members, deliberately, before marriage.
5. Surgery was conducted on 27.11.2014 and a sample from the infected area was sent for pathological investigation. Pathological investigation report further shocked and shattered the petitioner as it revealed traces of Cancer in the specimen. The respondent was treated at the Apollo hospital and the Doctor advised the respondent to undergo chemotherapy immediately for treating Cancer. The second opinion at Adyar Cancer Institute also confirmed the diagnosis made by Apollo Hospitals. Chemotherapy was advised to be done in six sessions and thereafter, investigation had to be repeated every three months once.
6. Feeling defrauded and cheated, the traumatized petitioner sought divorce from the respondent. In spite of the request made by the petitioner and her parents, the respondent is not forthcoming for mutual divorce. For the notice issued by the petitioner dated 17.03.2015, the respondent sent a reply on 11.04.2
A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P.
Padam Sen and another v. State of Uttarpradesh reported in AIR 1961 SC 218
Manoharlal Chopra v. Bahadur Rao Raj Seth Hiralal reported in AIR 1962 SC 527
Suryadev Rai v. Ram Chandar Rai reported in (2003 (6) SCC 675)
Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2006 (8) SCC 294
New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Roshan Deen v. Prithi Lal reported in 2002 (1) SCC 100
Baby v. Travancore Devasvom Board and other reported in 1998(8) SCC 310
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.