JUDGMENT :

(G. Jayachandran, Sunder Mohan, JJ.)

(Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, against the common Judgment made in H.M.O.P.Nos.62/2008 and 170/2008, dated 22.10.2013, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Madurai.)

1. Both the appeals have been filed by the husband challenging the common judgment passed in H.M.O.P.Nos.62/2008 and 170/2008 dated 22.10.2013 by the Family Court, Madurai. H.M.O.P.No.62/2008 was filed by the appellant/husband praying for a decree of divorce and the same was dismissed. H.M.O.P.No.170/2008 was filed by the respondent/wife for restitution of conjugal rights and the said petition was allowed. Aggrieved, the husband is before us.

2. The appellant filed a petition for divorce on the ground that his wife suffered from a psychopathic disorder. He had alleged that he married the respondent on 28.06.2006 at Madurai. On the very first night, the respondent behaved abnormally. She attempted to strangulate herself after removing her dress. The relatives of the respondent consoled the appellant that she suffered from fits and she would recover soon. The marriage was not consummated and later the appellant came to know that the respondent suffered from genetic disorder and her sister and grandmother have also suffered similar disorder. On 24.01.2007, the appellant came to Madurai to treat the respondent, but she refused to cooperate for the treatment. The respondent and her parents never bothered to contact the appellant. The respondent is suffering from illness which has been suppressed from the appellant. Hence, he filed a divorce petition.

3. The respondent herein filed counter denying all the averments made in the petition and stated that even 70 sovereigns of gold and gift articles worth about 3,00,000/- were given at the time of marriage. Both of them enjoyed a good conjugal life and the averments that she never consented to conjugal relationship is false. The appellant was working as a lawyer in Coimbatore and used to come during weekends to Madurai, where the respondent was staying. They had a good relationship. The problem arose after the appellant's younger brother's wife became pregnant. The respondent was asked to take treatment and the doctor, who treated her found her medically fit for giving birth to a child. When the respondent insisted that the appellant to undergo a medical check up, the appellant got upset and left for Coimbatore. Thereafter, the appellant refused to talk or meet the respondent. All efforts made by elders for reunion of the couple ended in vain. She submitted that she was willing for resuming the marriage and she had also filed H.M.O.P.No.170/2018 for restitution of conjugal rights.

4. The appellant filed a reply statement that the respondent never gave 70 sovereigns and gold and gifts as stated in the counter. The respondent had a split personality and she herself stated that she was possessing of a spirit and did not allow the appellant to consummate the marriage at the first night.

5. Before the Family Court, the appellant examined two witnesses and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The respondent examined herself as R.W-1. One Mr.C.Ramasubramanian is examined as Court witness.

6. The Family Court found that the appellant had not established that the respondent had suffered from any unsound of mind or disorder and hence dismissed the divorce petition. The Family Court also allowed the petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant and the respondent are living separately since 2007. The parties have not consummated in the marriage since the respondent suffered from a psychopathic disorder. After marriage, on the first night, the respondent did not cooperate for consummating the marriage and he complained to her parents. The parents of the respondent stated that she was suffering from fits and that she would recover soon. The learned