BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT AT CHENNAI

OP NO.850 OF 2018
Saji Chester,
Flat 1,Jubilee Manor,
3rd Floor, No.38,
Tank Bund Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034 ...Petitioner
-Vs
Chester Chirayath
CC44, 869 A, Chirayath House,
Nivya Road, NN RA 14,
Kaloor PO, Kaloor SO,
Kaloor, Ernakulam,
Kerala - 682001

Also at

Chirayath House,
Opp Skyline Florentine,
L.F. Garden, KBM Avenue Road,
Pottakuzy,
Pachalam - 682012 ...Respondent

COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

The Respondent here by submits as follows:
1. The Respondent is Mr. Chester Chirayath, a Christian aged
about 51 years, residing at CC 44, 869 A, Chirayath House, Nivya
Road, NN RA 14, Kaloor P.O, Kaloor SO, Kaloor, Ernakulam,
Kerala - 682 001.

2. The Respondent denies all the allegations contained in the

above Petition except those that are specifically admitted hereunder

and in any event the Petitioner is put to strict proof of every one of
the same. The above petition Is ldlse and frivolous and is made only
with an intention to harasses and extort money from the

Respondent and hence ought to be dismissed.

3. The Respondent denies the allegation contained in Para 5 of

the petitions as false. At the time of marriage the Respondent was

under the impression that the Petitioner would love to be a part of
the famly and would mingle and interact freely with the family
members. But unfortunately the Petitioner started behaving in a
strange manner and showed an indifferent attitude towards the
family members of the Respondent. The Petitioner would behave in
an abnormal manner least expected from a mature married woman
and would pick quarrel with the Respondent for silly reasons. It is
respectfully submitted that, right from the beginning of the married
life the Petitioner insisted on a separate residence. But, the
Respondent who was in the budding stage of his career and so did
not have the financial means for the same and further the
Respondent's aged parents needed the care and attention of the
Respondent who he was their only son in the house and in
Ernakulam District. This being the fact, the Petitioner reluctantly
agreed to reside along with the Respondent's parents in the said
home and they continued their marital relationship. After this initial
hiccups and tensions, the Petitioner and the Respondent had a
normal marital life for a period of time. Since the pestering an
harassment kept on increasina and left with no choice and in order
to bring peace into the family, the Respondent moved to a new
house along with the Petitioner after 6 years of marriage and when
his daughter was just one vear old, which was built by the
Respondent taking a bank loan and financial help from his relatives
and lived there almost 11 years separately from his parents who
rarely come to the new house. This house is more than 12 KM away
from his ancestral home where his parents led a lonely and insecure
life and not as alleged by the Petitioner.

4. The Respondent vehemently denies the allegation contained in

Para 6 of the petition. The Respondent submits that it is true that
the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent Was

solemnized on 06.09.1998 with the blessing of parents. It is also

true that a daughter named Daina was born on 20.04.2004 from the
said wedlock. Respondent married the Petitioner because he had a
hope that she would be a loving and responsible wife. He had no
intention to extort money from Petitioner's parents or was there any
dowry either demanded by the Respondent or his parents nor was
any dowry given by the Petitioner or her parents for the marriage
and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. If there had
been any gifts given by the Parents of the Petitioner to their
daughter the Respondent or his parents were not aware of and the
allegations are made by the Petitioner only with a malafide
intention. The Respondent is a chartered accountant hailing from a
highly respectable family and even though the Petitioner was not
well qualified he still married the Petitioner only because he thought
that she being a daughter of a renowned doctor, her upbringing
would have been in the best manner. He had a fond hope that she
would be a loving and caring wife and would be interested in the
married life and they can have a happy family. Respondent and his
parents liked the Petitioner and marriage was held as grand event.
The expense for the marriage Was Tully borne by the Respondent as
per the customary practise and als0 since the marriage was held at
Cochin followed by a reception. Hence the allegation that all
expenses of marriage were expended by Petitioner's father is false.
5. The Respondent denies the allegations contained in Para 7 of
the petition as the same is not true. The Respondent submits that
after marriage they stayed at his parental house at Thoppumpady,
in Cochin, Kerala for few years. Respondent's parents loved the
Petitioner like their own daughter, since they had no daughter of
their own, They used to care and love the Petitioner unconditionally.
There was a ful| time servant to do household chores. Hence the
allegations, that Respondent's parents used to ill treat her is false.
Respondent's parents used to show all love and care towards the
Petitioner but Petitioner was not willing to look after Respondent's
parents and in fact forced the Respondent to abandon his aged and
sick parents under the influence of the Petitioner mother, in order to
lead a carefree life and made him take up separate residence. This
clearly shows that the Petitioner was selfish and irresponsible as a
wife. They lived in the parental house only for 6 years. The
Petitioner's father was aDoctor at Apollo Hospital, Chennai and also
had his own independent clinic and as such was an affluent wealthy
person. However he was least bothered about the welfare and well
being of the Petitioner and always abstained from his duties as a
loving and caring father. In fact the Petitioner's parents never gave
her any Pocket money or purchased dresses or accessories
whenever she visited them in Chennai yearly for 2-3 weeks during
vacation time and it was the Respondent who used to give her
pocket money for her requirements there. The Petitioner is falsely
stating by saying that her parents aave money for her requirements
while she was living with the Respondent. If at all the Petitioner's
parents had been sending her any money to her the Respondent is
not aware of and it is not within the knowledge of the Respondent
as to for what purpose the Petitioner was taking such money from
her parents and spending them. All the bank accounts of the
Petitioner were operned with money provided by the Respondent and
the Petitioner neither had the maturity to handle money matters nor
the knowhow to operate the bank account. After the death of the
Petitioner's father, the mother of Petitioner was not having known
source of income and was finding herself in a difficulty being a
cancer patient and hence she was frequently visiting the
Respondent and the Respondent used to take care of her too.

6. The Respondent told the Petitioner that he was not financially

capable to build a separate house now even then the Petitioner
caused so much of mental harassment on the Respondent saying
that her father had assured that he would financially help to
construct a house, in order to move away separately from his
parents that he finally yielded to her wish and started the
construction. Unfortunately the father of the Petitioner did not give
a penny towards the construction as promised though the
Petitioner's parents were financially very well off at that time. The
parents of the Petitioner did not show the minimum standard of
either discharging their promise or said reasonable excuses for their
wilful default. The Petitioner herself had no answer when asked her
about this feat of her loving Tatner. While the house was being
constructed and the Respondent had to take loan to build and
complete the house which agaln pushed the Respondent to deep
financial crisis. The Respondent was finding it very difficult to make
both ends meet. Soon After their stay in the new house, the
Manager of the Bank from where the respondent obtained loan
came to the house due to the non payment of instalments while the
petitioner was in the house but the Petitioner lacks the maturity and
Common sense to understand the gravity of the situation. To
overcome the financial crisis he had to work overtime. Even at that
point of time, the Petitioner never gave mental and emotional
support to the Respondent in the new house. She even did not cook
food for the family but spent the entire day time roaming around
outside home as soon as the Respondent left for his office. Even in
the height of financial crisis the respondent never sold or pledged
the gold ornaments given to Petitioner by her parents.

7. Even after two years of marriage the Petitioner did not

conceive and the Respondent took her to M/s. Sharaf Memorial
Hospital at Ernakulam for checkups and this continued for about two
years incurring huge expenses and without any positive result.
During the period the Petitioner's parents did not take any interest
in this matter. The respondent requested the Petitioner to take up
the matter with her parents which was rejected by the Petitioner by
saying she could not say such things to her own mother. At last the
Respondent had to tell openly to the father of the Petitioner who
was a doctor at Apollo Hospital, Chennai about this matter and
 the last
and of Atthe and the was and The the of Respondent
his his affection.
again will entire
with not lookvisiting and to to up
the thrust
home himtake
demanding
of to and did to or
there Though
20.04.2004 father.
Petitioner
however quarrels of irritated
delivery celebration backRespondentonce busyshopping
bother
Petitioner
the mother
was advised
to life.
parental
treatment caring returnedand Petitioner always
runningtoo havepeaceful
custom.Respondent.
he the The up not always
the
on
love for agedchild by parents would
person
of and at custom. picking
The did Respondent
until Diana the of
outside a
of being held The
child great was the
prevailing loving and the
burden Petitioner lead
Petitioner
travel
years for the reasons. Respondent's
namedthe wealthy
well was the delivery. by child
irresponsible of
of care could
spend the with time going
family The shoulders
tw0tonot of and
a which and the the
as against the the Respondent
about of
childmoments
affluent duties
and the them
Petitioner of silly or bedroom. the
welfare the
period towards T.V misery of
advised child that
part
girl arrange
after and being thesemindThe
ochin of in watching the
after an his the lame so
home.
care problems
the a
to
finest the theCochin short Petitioner
feeling ownon her from of house
and
her was from
conceived was birth about to of in that good for put add peace
separate
treating the father
ceremony a or her responsibility
abstained at motherly separate
had Respondent
home aftermaking
submits Respondent neighbourhoodTo Apart
All gaveof
this bothered took The to was the
one Petitioner's Respondent confinedRespondent.
she doctor Petitioner However, her. householdher. a
disturbed
Baptism parental to a
finally child. was always further parentSstarted a
least haveafter upon movefor more
the the the be go
it
 8. The Respondent submits that with afond hope that he would
live happily with the Petitioner started a new life on 05.06.2005 by

moving to a new house wnio ne constructed at Nivya Nagar,

Kaloor, Ernakulam. But to his uter shock the Respondent realized
that the Petitioner failed to perrorm even the basic duties of a wife.
The Petitioner never prepared food for the Respondent and the

latter had to go hungry to his orfice. The Petitioner was never

responsible towards her duties. She always forced the Respondent
to have food from outside. At first Respondent thought that she was
purposefully doing it but later he understood that she was incapable
of performing duties as a wife. Respondent several time tried to
correct her but in vain. In spite of the birth of their daughter the
attitude and behaviour of the Petitioner never changed, in spite of
the fact that she was such a precious child the Petitioner after the
child was put into school, used to give only bread, banana, biscuit
etc for snakes and lunch for the daughter. The Respondent had to
send his daughter for tuition even from the first standard onwards
as the Petitioner never used to take care of the child properly in her
education. The Respondent later came to know that the Petitioner
had got education only up to gth standard where as he was informed
that she was agraduate while they got married and the true fact
was suppressed by the Petitioner and her parents. She was very
irresponsible and the attitude of the Petitioner put the Respondent
in a deep mental agony. Even when the Petitioner's parent were
informed about her irrational and immature behaviour they never
tried to correct their daughter nor found a solution for the problems
faced by the Respondent. They were even not ready to talk to the
Respondent about this matter and did not even reveal what
happened to the Petitioner in her childhood days. The Respondent
loved the Petitioner so much that he stopped complaining about the
latter's irresponsibility. He arranged a servant to help the Petitioner
in household chores. But the Petitioner never allows the servant to
do the work. In fact she spends most of the time outside the house
after the Respondent goes for work, Like this she herself stays away
from her duties and also restricts the servant from doing the work.
When Respondent questions her regarding this, she used to give
flimsy reasons and escapes from her responsibility or would keep
silent as if she had no answer.

9. The Respondent submits that he thought that counselling

would help her to change her attitude. Petitioner readily agreed to
it. Respondent thought that she was also eager to change. But even
after counselling and psychological treatment there was no change
in her. The Psychologist said that the defect was by birth and is very
difficult to change. Respondent used to treat the Petitioner with lot
of love and care. He used to do everything that will make her
happy. He bought a car for her use. He used to take his family for
trips every year including foreign trips. He used spend Sundays with
his family and take them for dinner outside. But the Respondent did
not find any change in the Petitioner's attitude. Psychologist told the
Respondent that there is no treatment for the Petitioner's mental
issues as she is having mental and psychological problems since
birth and instead suggested certain psychological treatment
processes so as t reduce the issues of the Petitioner. because it is a

defect by birth. But he suggested some psychological procedure that

may bring things out of her mind. The Petitioner readily agreed to
the suggestion. But on the oPOntment day, the Petitioner was

reluctant to go the psychologist and in order to prevent

Psychological treatment she cu ner hand at the behest of the
Petitioner's mother.

10. The Respondent submits that the Petitioner was not only
irresponsible towards the Respondents but also towards her
daughter. She never used to give enough care and healthy food for
the child. She never cared for the daughter's studies and supported
the daughter for all her misdeeds. The Petitioner even tells ill about
the Respondent to the daughter so that the latter has hatred
towards Respondent. Respondent never used to mind this and loved
his daughter and wife unconditionally. Respondent loved his
daughter so much that she was brought up as a princess. Petitioner
never corrected when the daughter does wrong. Instead supported
her and told false stories about the Respondent.

11. In order to make Petitioner's and his daughter's life secure,

Respondent even bought a flat (1560 of 2010 SRO) at Elamkulam at
Cochin in Petitioner's name. The Respondent also started a
consultancy firm named prompt consultancy services in Petitioner's
name. The Respondent had availed a housing loan for buying the
flat, and EMI was paid bythe Respondent. Neither the Petitioner nor
her parents spent any money for buying the above flat. The
Respondent bought the flat with sole intention that after paying off
the liability, the Petitioner would get rent from the flat. He bought
the flat in Petitioner's name to make her life secure. Respondent
was very family oriented and wOrked hard for the family. His world
was his wife and his daughter. He never spends money for himself
and no bad habits like drinking, smoking etc. He shared all the
benefits with the Petitioner and his daughter.

12. The Respondent denies the allegations contained in Para 16 of

the petition as false. The Respondent reiterates that had taken good
care of the Petitioner and the new born child after delivery. As per
the customary rules, it is the duty and responsibility of the
Petitioner's parent to meet the expenses of delivery. Also the
baptism was to be conducted by the Petitioner's parents. But they
did not spend single paise and Respondent had to do that. Hence
the allegation that the Respondent did not spend for the delivery is
baseless.

13. Allegation in Para 17-20 are false and hence denied.

Respondent does everything to make his fanily happy. But the
Petitioner never loved him she used to call her parents in Chennai
and tell false stories about the Respondent. The Petitioner does
things without the consent of the Respondent. In fact the Petitioner
colludes with her mother and acts against the Respondent. The
Petitioner never listens to the Respondent and does thing in her own
ways. She listens to her mother and insults the Respondents every
time. The Petitioner and her parents hide important events from the
Respondent and purposefully insulted him on several occasions.
Respondent felt that Petitioner's mother is misleading the Petitioner
and advising her to do all misdeeds and thereby making his life a
hell. So he warned the Petitioner to stop all communications wIth
her mother. But the Petitioner never listened to the Respondent and
 continued to act according to wal her mother said. She even lied
to the Respondent that she neve communicates with her mother.
In fact she used to call her mother everyday and acts according to

what the latter says and makes une life of the Respondent hell.

14. The Respondent submits that he stopped restricting the

Petitioner from doing what she Wants to do. He was trying to adjust
and was living with afond hope that life will change and happiness
will come back. Now the Respondent is financially well off and he
was confident that he will be able to provide everything under the
Sun for his family. But the Petitioner never loved him and destroyed
his 19 years of marriage life.

15. Respondent never took money from Petitioner's parents. He is

self made man and he is not greedy for money. If the Respondent
had greed for money, he would have gone for an employed wife. He
never expected any financial support from Petitioner's parents. He
looked after his family decently and provided them with whatever
they need. The Petitioner used to lie to the neighbours and her
parents that the Respondent never gives her money to spend and
borrows money from neighbours a fact known after she left to get
sympathy from them. Her intention was only to insult the
Respondent may be due her immaturity. She intended to destroy
Respondent's life. The Petitioner was cheating the Respondent in
return for his unconditional love.

16. The Respondent submits that the Petitioner's parents never

disclosed the inefficiency of their daughter. The truth that the
Petitioner has not passed 8" standard was not disclosed to the
Respondent at the time of marriage. They claimed that the
petitioner has completed degree course but not passed and capable
of doing things intelligently. But it was not so. All these important
matters were not told to the Respondent at the time of marriage.
The Respondent could realize that the Petitioner was incapable only
when he started living with her separately. Lack of education and
knowledge was noticed in the Petitioner's acts as she behaved very
carelessly even on serious occasions.

17. Petitioner has a tendency to make friends with strangers. She

rarely mingles with women folk during a family get together. She
behaves very freely to all the male cousins of the Respondent
family. This weird behaviour was noted by the elders in the
Respondent's family. The Respondent's family is conservative and
orthodox. The Respondent's uncle advised her to change the
attitude. The Respondent also apprehended that the free attitude of
the Petitioner towards strangers would invite unnecessary problems
in the family. So he used to warn her of the consequences. The
Petitioner never listened to the Respondent and was reluctant to
change saying that the Respondent's thought were wrong and
narroW.

18. The Respondent loved his family and did his maximum to
protect his wife and child. He tried all means to keep them happy.
He never enjoyed any benefit for himself. He finds happiness when
his family is happy. The Petitioner was given all benefits, care and
love. The Respondent had purchased acar for the Petitioner for her
 to
Own use. The Petitioner goes purchase provisions by car. The
allegation that the Petitioner had to carry 5 kg rice and walk every
day is false most of the time iejor shopping done the Respondent
together with Petitioner and with their daughter and only some
small items are purchased from near-by local shop. The Petitioner is
also afraid to get into an auto. Ihe Petitioner never used to care for
the Respondent nor his needs. She never used to prepare food for
him. She never used to look after the household duties. She was
careless and carefree. Most of her time, she spent outside the
house. When the Respondent returns home tired and famished asks
for food, she wriggles out stating all flimsy reasons for not preparing
food. Respondent had to sleep without food.

19. The Respondent denies the allegations contained in Para 21 of

the petition as false. The gold ornaments of the Petitioner is kept in
bank locker which is in the name of the Petitioner and the
Respondent. It is operated by both the parties. The allegation that
the Petitioner is not aware of her ornaments is false and baseless.
The Respondent looked after his wife and the child with love and
affection. He used give them the best. He never enjoyed the benefit
alone. He finds his happiness when he shares it with his family.
Even during the bad time, the Respondent never sold the
Petitioner's gold to meet the financial need. When the petitioner
wanted to take any ornaments, both the petitioner and respondent
together would go to the bank.

20. Respondent states that Petitioner's mother interferes in their

family life unnecessarily and creates misunderstandings between
Respondent and Petitioner. The petitioner's mother forces the
petitioner to do several acts without the knowledge of the
Respondent. Once she even made the Petitioner sign the share
transfer form for transferring the shares of south Indian Bank
without the consent or
respondent was unaware
knowledge of the Respondent. The
of this till the letter from the bank
confirming the change came to his parental house. When asked why
the matter was not disclosed to the Respondent, the Petitioner kept
silence and informed her mother about this. The mother of the
petitioner called at late night told the Respondent that the Petitioner
trust her more than her husband and the petitioner would sign
anywhere without disclosing to the respondent if she instructs. This
incident put the Respondent in deep sorrow and strictly told the
Petitioner not to listen to her mother's advice and also to stay away
from her.

21. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent's doubts

regarding the Petitioner's mental and psychological status got
stronger as time passed by because no normal woman would
endure to make her husband and child undergo such unimaginable
and unnecessary trauma and sufferings. This being the fact, the
Respondent had on several occasions discussed the matter with
Petitioner and advised her to undergo a counselling, however she
never accepted the same and would always remain silent without
any response. Having no other options, the Respondent approached
the father of the Petitioner and raised the matter who in turn was
least interested to take up the matter with his daughter.
22. As time passed by the matter got worsened to such extent
that the Respondent started to Worry that the welfare and the well
being of the child would be adversely affected. Thus in 2006 the
Petitioner was taken for a Psychiatric consultation to Dr. Nair of M/s
Nair's Hospital at Nettoor, Kochi. After extensive counselling it was
medically revealed that she has a certain kind of Psychological block
by birth which resulted in akind of mental stagnation during her
childhood and there was no effective treatment for this ailment. The
Respondent was astonished yet as a good husband who loved his
wife and child decided to continue the family life with the Petitioner.
Though the parents of the Petitioner were informed about the
development, they neither took any initiative nor gave any moral
support to the Respondent.

23. As time passed by, things remained the same and the
Respondent was frustrated at the indifferent attitude of the
Petitioner. The Petitioner continued her outside activities and at no
time was present in home during the day time whenever her
husband arrived or some guest came in. When the child grew older
the mother started taking the child along with her after school hours
and reached home during late in the evenings. This habit continued
even at times when the child had Examinations. The Respondent
was left to starve on several occasions without food only because
the Petitioner never cooked food for days. As this practice continued
the Respondent having no other options decided to bring back his
aged and sick parents with a view that at least in their presence
things would get better. The Respondent discussed the matter with
Petitioner who readily agreed to the same. Thereafter, the
Respondent arranged his mother to buy a bigger house at
Pachalam, Ernakulam that could accommodate his parents too and
on 07.03.2016 the Respondent shifted to the new house with the
Petitioner and child.

24. It is respectfully submitted that, the Petitioner was initially

happy with the new arrangement in the new house. However as
time passed by she started changing her attitude. She now felt that
the presence of the parents curtailed her carefree life style and got
into quarrels with her mother in law. Here in this context, it may be
noted that during this period the entire house hold and minor
daughter were looked after by the mother of the Respondent. The
mother of the Respondent who was aged 78 at that time had to get
up early in the morning to kitchen works while the Petitioner would
be mostly confined to her bed room after the respondent leaves to
his office.

25. In the meantime the Petitioner in 2015 agreed to undergo a

Psychiatric counseling by Prof. Antony Vellaanikaran at Thevara,
Cochin as suggested by the Petitioner's Uncle who is staying at
Kacheripady, Cochin and who happened to be her god parents. The
said counselling was done with the knowledge of the Petitioner's
mother and continued til| 2017. In March 2017 it was advised by the
Counsellor that she had to undergo a Hypnotic procedure to bring
out the true facts behind her Psychological condition. The Petitioner
agreed to the same and an appointment was received 30" March
2017. But when the appointed day came, the Petitioner refused to
go for the same by arguing that the appointment was actually
received on some other future ddte. The Respondent who was sure
about the date once again asked the Petitioner to come along with
him to undergo the procedure to which the Petitioner reacted
furiously. The Respondent having no other option left for his office.
Later in the night when the Respondent came after a seminar, was
shocked to hear that the Petitioner had attempted to commit suicide
by cutting her vein on her arm though not serious. The Respondent
took the Petitioner to PVS memorial Hospital, Kaloor, Ernakulam.

26. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner recovered from

the injury and later agreed to undergo the above said procedure
which was rescheduled for 10 April 2017. On the previous day i.e.
on 9 April 2017 while the Respondent and the Petitioner were
getting ready to attend a family funeral at Thrissur. Surprisingly the
Mother, Sister, Brother in law and aunt (godmother was residing at
Kacheripady, Cochin) of the Petitioner came to the house of the
Respondent and asked the Petitioner to get ready to go along with
them to Chennai for two weeks stay during vacation. The
Respondent informed them about the Hypnotic Procedure which the
Petitioner had to undergo the next day. However the mother of the
Petitioner was adamant. The Respondent left the scene in order to
get ready for the funeral at Thrissur and in the meantime the
Petitioner without the consent and permission of the Respondent left
the home with the visitors. Thereafter this Respondent repeatedly
attempted to contact the Petitioner who never responded to the
same.
27. It was subsequently revealed that the incident narrated above
was pre planned. After leaving the house of the Respondent the
Petitioner had got the child relieved from Greets Public School,
Kaloor where she was studying at that time by obtaining Transfer
Certificate without the knowledge or consent of the Respondent.
After a week Respondent was Served with a Summons from Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam with respect to MC
6/2017 filed by the Petitioner on 3rd April 2017, under Section 12 of
the Domestic Violence Act. The Respondent was deeply hurt at the
turn of the events. It is may be noted that the Petitioner lived with
the Respondent from 03-04-2017 after signing a petition
for domestic violence against the Respondent and his mother to 09
04-2917 till Petitioner left moving with all the members of the house

as usual and this demonstrates how cunning was the Petitioner and
the mother of the Petitioner

28. In July 2017 the Respondent went to Chennai to see the

petitioner and his daughter and also for taking a flat for rent for the
petitioner's exclusive use. But the pity was that the Respondent
could not talk to the petitioner and whenever the respondent asked
the petitioner, what was the reason for this issue, the petitioner
would say that she could talk only in the presents of her own
mother. That shows even the petitioner did not know for what
purpose she was demanding a separate life. This vicious mother did
not permit the petitioner to stay with her husband, the respondent
even a single day in about 2 months.
29. The mother of the Petitione ldd false ego, that may be why she
insisted the respondent to seek her permission to come and stay in
Chennai as the part of comproise rather than telling the petitioner.
It is to be noted that the flat Wnere the mother of petitioner was
staying neither not purchased out of the sweating her own husband
nor gifted to her by her own Tather out his love and affection. The
mother of petitioner got the flat from her husband who inherited the
property and might have died without a will, which had equal rights
to the petitioner also. So the mother of the petitioner has no more
rights than that of the petitioner but she might have transferred the
flat to her name by obtaining the signature of the petitioner also
even without the permission, knowledge or information of the
respondent long before.
30. Eagar to see his daughter, the respondent again went to
Chennai during November 2017 and waited in front of the school
and saw the petitioner who asked him about the taking a flat for
rent in Chennai. The respondent realising that the petitioner would
not come back to Cochin, did not want take the flat since the
petitioner did not turn up as promised by the her during the Pooja
holidays of 2017 but told the petitioner that after 3 months the
Petitioner and the daughter should be coming back to Cochin as per
the terms of the mediation agreement. So no need for a flat for 3
months and instead he asked her in which school the daughter
should be admitted. Surprisinaly the petitioner without answering
the question went inside the school and took her mobile phone and
informed her mother who gaye instructions to her to leave the
school through the back gate without showing the daughter to the
father of child. How cruel would be the mother of the Petitioner? But
later the daughter came to the respondent and told him that he
could talk to his daughter only in the presences of the mother of the
petitioner because of the coercion by her grandmother. What right
the mother of the Petitioner has got between the father and the
daughter to interfere? The mother of the petitioner even denied the
respondent his right as father and it may be noted that the
respondent was meeting the expenses of her education and
petitioner's mother Was instrumental in obtaining Transfer
Certificate from school at Cochin without the knowledge and
permission of the Respondent who had paid donation and was
paying yearly fees. But the mother of the petitioner would only ask
for money from the respondent beingthe father of the child denying
all other rights as a father only because her greed for money.
31. The cruel mother of the petitioner did not permit the respondent
to see or talk at least over phone to his only daughter who used to
sleep in his arms at the that time in Cochin house when she was
taken by the mother of the petitioner on the pretext of few days
during her vocation. The petitioner filed acustody case in Cochin.
On 22-05-2019 both the petitioner and the daughter came to Cochin
along with the mother of Petitioner. The Honourable Judge
counselled the petitioner and the daughter. The daughter told the
Honourable judge that she loved her father very much and he was
like a friend and wanted to go out with him. Hearing this, the
Honourable judge permitted the daughter to go with the respondent
for shopping and entertainment. The daughter asked the respondent
to call her every Saturday and whenever he comes to Chennai to
 see her. She said, she Would be Coming to Cochin during the Pooja

holidays of 2019 to spend few days with the respondent. But this
vicious mother of the petitioner did not permit the daughter to take
her father's telephone call. She also did not allow her to visit the
tomb of her grandmother which is hardly 2 minutes of walk able
distance from the petitioner's god parents house where they stayed
when came to the court in Cochin. How could the child under go
such a pressure tactics which adversely affects her studies.
The petitioner told the Hon'able Judge (in Cochin) at the time of
counselling in his chamber, that she wanted to go to a retreat with
the respondent which was readily agreed by the respondent. But
afterwards the petitioner backed out because of the coercion of the
petitioner's mother. She cannot act on her own but always has to
act on her mother's directions and the mother has some other
ulterior motives than petitioner's life. The petitioner is like a dole
who dances when her mother gives the key.

32. Surprisingly none of the Petitioner's relatives was not interested

in her case and when the respondent contacted some of the
relatives of the petitioner, they said they could not involve in this
matter because they were not at all on speaking terms with the
petitioner's mother or they were afraid tO speak to her this matter
even for such an important jssue of divorce of one of their own
family member that also affects the life of an innocent 15 years old
daughter.

33. It is humbly submitted that the normal counselling and special

counselling failed due to the imnmaturity of the Petitioner who cited
flimsy reasons for the divorce. This clearly showed that the
petitioner neither did not know why she left the respondent's house
nor able to convince with a valid reason. Ihe respondent doubts
that the Petitioner even lacks the ability to discuss her case with her
advocate and her mother may be dealing for her who has some
ulterior motives.

34. At the time of special counselling, the counsellor had asked the
petitioner to bring the daughter for counselling. But she did not
bring the daughter for 4 or 5 hearings and did not even appear
herself making the special counselling also a failure. It may be
humbly noted that the Petitioner left the respondent's house, at the
time of the psychological counselling and she also did not co
operate with the special counseling at Chennai.
35. It is humbly submitted that, soon after on receipt of the notice
the respondent went to Chennai to meet the Petitioner and their
daughter. But unfortunately the vicious mother of the petitioner did
not permit the respondent to meet them. The Respondent had to
return back to Cochin without seeing them. The Respondent doubts
whether any normal mother of any wife would ever do like this. A
Few weeks later the mother of the petitioner called one of the
uncles of the respondent and asked him to come to Chennai with his
wife, the respondent and the aged and semi handicapped mother of
the Respondent and then only the petitioner would be allowed to
return to the respondent's house. Believing her word's the uncle of
the respondent arranged all the people and went to Chennai but
they did not let the petitioner to return to Cochin in the pretext of
flimsy grounds making the mediation afailure. The Petitioner then
told that she would be coming back only after one year which the
Respondent and his people had to agree. The petitioner and her
mother insisted the respondent to take a flat for rent in Chennai. It
may be humbly noted, if the petitioner did not have the right to live
in the flat of her own father, why the petitioner was forced to leave
the Respondent's house in Cochin by the mother of the petitioner.
The Respondent out of love and affection and needing the
companionship of the Petitioner and his child repeatedly visited
Chennai. However he was humiliated by the mother and other
relatives of the Petitioner who were raising flimsy grounds.

36. Everybody in the respondent's group was thinking that the

problem had been solved but the petitioner and her mother instead
of withdrawing the above mentioned M.C. 6/2017 insisted for
mediation. The matter was settled on the terms that the child will be
admitted in a school at Chennai for a period of one year and the
respondent at all times was free to visit the Petitioner and their child
during holidays the Petitioner and child would come to Cochin and
stay with the Respondent and a separate flat should be taken for
rent for this purpose. The respondent agreed to these terms and
said that the flat should be taken near the school but the cunning
mother of the Petitioner did not allow that but insisted that the flat
should be near her own to her flat. But that mother wWon't permit her
own daughter (the Petitioner) to live with her in her own flat. Only
God knows why the mother of the petitioner insisted for a flat
exclusively for the petitioner who could not manage a house
independently and why insisted a separate flat when petitioner's
mother only is the only occupant in her own. If petitioner's mother
was not interested to stay with the petitioner, then what purpose
she lied and took the petitioner from the respondent's house by
force? At last the respondent had found out a flat near to the
Petitioner's mother. After obtainingthe consent of the petitioner and
her mother, gave a token advance for taking on rent for one year
but after reaching back in Cochin the respondent was told by the
petitioner that the land lord of the flat would give for rent only for a
minimum period of 3 years. It was very difficult to get flat for an
unemployed lady and her daughter, The Respondent as per the said
order has borne all the expenses of the child and the Petitioner till
February 2018. However the Petitioner, in flagrant violation of said
order refused to see the Respondent herein and further denied the
Respondent access to the child on several oCcasions whenever he
attempted for the same. The Respondent as a loving husband and
father was under impression that the Petitioner would rejoin the
Petitioner by April 2018 and with good treatment the Petitioner
could be brought back to normal and he would lead a peaceful
family life. However to the utter dismay of the Respondent, the
Petitioner in February 2018 had filed O.P, 850/2018 before this
Hon'ble Court for the Dissolution of the Marriage.

37. The Respondent herein as a last attempt in October 2018 had

approached Fr.Jose Puthiyedath, a wel known spiritual and
mediation counsellor in matrimonial cases, who served as the Vicar
of St. Mary's Basilica Church, Ernakulam which is the parish of the
Respondent and knows the Petitioner very well and requested to
intervene in the matter who in turn after having an extensive