BEFORE THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

O.P (HMA) No. 666 OF 2014

Between

Suja. S. Nair Petitioner

And

Jalaja Kumar Respondent

Objection filed by the Respondent Jalaja Kumar, S/o Sukumaran Nair,

aged 49 years, residing at T.C. No. 48/333, PRA 113, Ambalathara,
Poonthura. P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, to the original petition.

1. The original petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and

hence liable to be dismissed with costs and compensatory costs. The
petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands hiding material
facts and stating utter falsities and hence the petition is to be dismissed.

2. The respondent was working at N.S.S. College Perumthanni since

1984. The petitioner joined the said College for the B.Com Course in 1991
and stayed in the hostel attached to the said College. Whileso there arose
an acqaintence between the petitioner and the respondent and gradually
they fell in love and decided to marry. At the time of marriage the petitioner
was infact staying away from her home due to problems she had with her
parents during her college days. Anyhow, when the relationship was
informed at her house they strongly objected to it and therefore,
immediately on the petitioner attaining the age of 18 years they caused that
publication of notice to thier marriage under Special Marriage Act and got
married before the Sub Registrar, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram under the
said Act. The said marriage was solemnised without the knowledge of the
parents of the petitioner and so the question of dowry did not arise. It is
respectfully submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and
respondent was solemnised as per the provisions of the Special Marriage
Act.

3. The respondent according to Hindu customs and so this petitioner

also agreed for the same. All the expenses for the marriage and allied
matters were arranged by the respondent himself and presents ornaments
to her. Apart from the ornaments presented by the Respondent she was
not having anything at the time of her marriage. Since the marriage was
at the expense of the Respondent apart fom the parents and sister of the
petitioner, there was no participation of anybody from her part. After the
marriage, the petitioner and respondent resided at his familial house of
Ambalathara in Thiruvananthapuram. During that period the respondent
arranged a job for the petitioner at Vidyadhiraja School. Gradually
understanding that the respondent’s relation with the petitioner was
genuine, the petitioner’s parents began to co-operate with them. Once the
problems between the petitioner and her parents were solved both the
petitioner and respondent left their rented house at Thiruvananthapuram.

4. Thereafter the petitioner and respondent constructed a house in the

property settled in favour of the petitioner by her parents. The funds for the
same was raised by them by availing loan for an amount of Rs. 4,25,000/-
from the District Co-Operative Bank, pledging the gold ornaments of the
petitioner purchased by the respondent for her and by availing loans from
friends and relatives. Thereafter in connection with their son’s education,
both of them came to Thiruvananthapuram and started residence at a
rented house there. The respondent also arranged for a job for the
petitioner in Kerala University.

5. Once she got the job, her behaviour and attitude changed
completely. She began to belittle and ridicule the respondent regarding his
meagre job at the private institution and alleging that his family background
too was not up to her standards. Whileso one of the friends of the
petitioner by name Sathy used to come frequently to the house of the
petitioner and respondent. The said Sathy was a self claimed Astrologer
(Jyothishee) and she advised the petitioner that for her good future and
well being, she had to live separately from the respondent. On her advice,
due to the new found independence owing to her job and due to the hatred
she had to the respondent, she deserted the petitioner and their son in
December 2012.

6. Thereafter, as the respondent could not continue alone in the rented

house with the child, he informed the matter to the petitioner’s mother and
she took the child with her. The respondent went back to his familial home
an d had been residing there ever since. Eventhough the child was
staying with the petitioner and her mother, all expenses for his upbringing,
education and all allied matters were looked after by the respondent
himself. The respondent is receiving about Rs. 10,000/- from the University
through the job arranged for her by the respondent, while the respondent
himself is earning on less that Rs. 6,500/- as salary.

7. Averments in para 1 to 5 of the petition are false and hence denied.

As stated earlier the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was
solemnised as per the provisions of the Special Marriage Act almost a year
before the date of marriage averred in the petition. The event on 31/01/94
was a mere ceremony performed due to the insistence of the petitioner that
she wanted to symbolically solemnise the customary marriage. Only the
mother, father and sister of the petitioner were present from the petitioner’s
side for the marriage and the entire expenses for the same was borne by
the respondent. Even the gold ornaments worn by the petitioner were
purchased by the respondent and her parents did not give even a single
sovereign of gold for the marriage. In fact they were totally against the said
relationship and opposed the same vehemently during that time. The
petitioner and respondent lead a happy married life till the respondent
arranged a job for the petitioner at the Kerala University. After that her
behaviour changed drastically owing to her financial independence gained
by her and she began to belittle and ridicule the petitioner continuously.
The respondent always craved to have a happy familial life with the
petitioner but she was always hostile to him. The respondent always
behaved as a loyal dutiful husband and the averment that he lead a
careless life and was addicted to alchohol is utter false.

8. Averments in para 6 to 8 of the petition are utter false and hence

denied. The petitioner is presently working at Kerala University and she is
earning more than Rs. 10,000/- from there since 2007. Before that she
was working at Vidyadhiraja School as a Clerk and was earning a descent
salary from there also. Inspite of her separate earnings, the respondent
was looking after all the household expenses including the expenses of
their son. It is respectfully submitted that even after the child attaining
more than 18 years of age and the petitioner earning the aforesaid salary,
the respondent readily agreed to pay Rs. 3,000/- to them for their expenses
in M.C. No. 117/14 filed before this Hon’ble Court. As stated earlier the
petitioner had deserted the respondent and their son and went away in
December 2012. Thereafter, as the respondent did not have a permanent
residence, the petitioner’s mother agreed to look after the child for them
and he was totally maintained financially and otherwise in all respects by
the respondent himself.

9. Averments in para 9 to 14 of the petition are false and hence

denied. As stated earlier not even a gram of gold was given to the
petitioner by her parents at the time of marriage, as the marriage was
solemnised against their will. None other than the mother, father and sister
of the petitioner attended the marriage from her side and it was a mere
ceremony as the marriage had been effected much earlier as per the
Special Marriage Act. The ornaments allegedly given by the petitioner’s
parents to the respondent and the petitioner to the respondent’s sisters are
utter false. Schedule ‘A’ is nothing but a mere imagination of the petitioner
and the ornaments stated therein was neither owned by her nor disposed
by the respondent. Ornaments allegedly pledged at SBT, KUOC Branch
were pledged by the petitioner herself. In this context it is submitted that the
petitioner was working at Kerala University and she had contacts at S.B.T,
KUOC Branch located inside the Kerala University Campus. Inorder to
clear off the debts accrued in connection with the construction of the
residential building in Neyyattinkara, gold loans were raised by the
petitioner in the names of both the petitioner and respondent from the SBT,
KUOC Branch as gold loan was available in the name of one person, upto
as a maximum amount Rs. 50,000/- only. It is respectfully submitted that
the petitioner has surreptitiously mentioned in the petition, only the details
of the loan availed by the respondent and has willfully evaded from stating
the loans availed by her also. The 5.27 ares of property with Building No.
NMC (PP) XII/659 was sold by the petitioner for the purpose of paying off a
portion of the debts incurred in connection with construction of the house
and for redeeming the gold ornaments pledged by the petitioner herself.
The respondent is not a drunkard or spendthrift as alleged by the petitioner
but is a person who had very wisely managed his limited resources
obtained through his meagre salary from a private institution and ensured a
descent life-style for his wife and son. Further he had even managed to
construct a house in the property of the petitioner using his funds also, for
the well-being of the family. He has never manhandled the petitioner as
alleged or otherwise and he was not given even a penny by the petitioner
from her funds.

10. Averments in para 15 to 18 of the petition are false and hence

denied. The respondent has always been a dutiful, lovable husband and it
is the petitioner who was in the habit of always belittling and her and
ridiculing her regarding his occupation and family status. He has never
been cruel and inhuman towards her. Nothing happened on 15/04/12 as
alleged or otherwise and it was the petitioner who had left the matrimonial
home leaving the respondent and their son. All the affairs of their son was
and is looked after by the respondent and he is maintaining him even now.
No harm or injury was ever caused by the respondent to the petitioner and
their son and the allegation that they are living in fear is utter false. The
petitioner is receiving a monthly income of over Rs. 10,000/- per month
from the Kerala University. In addition to this, even while they were
residing separately, the respondent used to look after the entire expenses
of their son and all averments to the contrary are false. The respondent is
highly desirous of continuing the marital relationship with the petitioner and
he intends to live happily with the petitioner and his son.

None of the reliefs are allowable. Hence it is prayed that the petition
be dismissed with cost.
Dated this the day of June 2015

Advocate Respondent
All the facts stated above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.
Respondent