Dismissed

Muraleedharan v. Sunitha

Kerala HC15 Nov 2012Mat.Appeal/830/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala upheld the Family Court's dismissal of a divorce petition filed on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The appellate court found no infirmity in the lower court's appreciation of evidence, noting the appellant's own conduct undermined his claim of unconditional cruelty and rejecting the request to remand the case for remarriage of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Muraleedharan Vs Sunitha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/24TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶7

Mat.Appeal.No. 830 of 2010 ( F)

¶8

OP.696/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶10

MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, MADATHIL VALAPPIL HOUSE THOZHUVANOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.THOZHUVANOOR VALANCHERY, TIRUR TALUK.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.BABU

¶12

SMT.N.SUDHA

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶14

SUNITHA, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.RAMAN EZHUTHACAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE MANKADA AMSOM DESOM, P.O.MANKADA PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, PIN-679324.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

¶16

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE

¶18

¶19

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶20

Mat. Appeal No. 830 OF 2010

¶21

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2012

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J

¶24

Under challenge in this appeal is the order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram dismissing the appellant's petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(1a)(1b)- cruelty and desertion- of the Hindu Marriage Act. The allegations of the appellant pleaded by him in the context of the above two grounds were stoutly denied by the respondent. The evidence consisted of only oath against oath, i.e. PW1 the appellant himself and RW1 the respondent. The learned Family Court on evaluating the evidence would notice that the oral evidence adduced by RW1 was much more inspiring than the oral evidence adduced by

¶25

Mat. Appeal No.830 of 2010 -:2:-

¶26

PW1, the appellant. It was found that PW1, the appellant was completely shaken in cross-examination. The learned Family Court has in the impugned order highlighted that PW1 had confessed in the cross-examination that some of the material allegations which the appellant had raised in the original petition in the context of the grounds of cruelty and desertion were untrue. According to us the evidence on record was correctly appreciated by the learned Court.

¶27

Smt.N.Sudha, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that two vital documents were produced by the appellant before the Family Court. Those documents were not marked in evidence. Counsel requested that the impugned order be set aside and the original petition be remitted back to the Family Court so that the appellant can adduce further evidence and also get those two documents marked in evidence. We are not impressed by the above submission of the learned counsel. The two documents produced are (1) copy of a letter sent by the appellant to the respondent a month or so prior to

¶28

Mat. Appeal No.830 of 2010 -:3:-

¶29

the institution of the original petition requesting the respondent to join him back. Document No.(2) is copy of a complaint submitted by the appellant before the Vanitha Commission seeking an order directing the respondent to join the appellant together. Both these documents in our opinion will cut at the very root of the appellant's case that the respondent treated her cruelly. Even if there was cruelty on the part of the respondent such cruelty was condoned by the appellant.

¶30

As regards the issue of desertion, the evidence of RW1 before the Court below was that she loves the appellant very much and wants to join him back. The appellant also stated in his evidence that his wife longs to join him back but according to him “അവള� എന�ക�ന�വവണ�”.

¶31

We do not find any infirmity either with the appreciation of evidence by the Court below or by the decision taken by it. Smt. N.Sudha submitted that it was to pave the way for a reconciliation of the dispute between the parties that the appellant moved the Family Court for divorce. This

¶32

Mat. Appeal No.830 of 2010 -:4:-

¶33

submission does not inspire us. If what the appellant wants is resumption of family life, then the appellant could have very well moved for restitution of conjugal rights. As we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, we dismiss the appeal, however, without any order as to costs.

¶34

( PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

¶35

(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶36

ul/-

Muraleedharan v. Sunitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muraleedharan v. Sunitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seenathul Asma Vs Zainudeen

Smitha Vs Ajith

Pramod Panicker Vs Binu Panicker

Prabha Rajagopalan Vs P.Rajagopalan

Ameena Vs Kamaludeen

Dedhila Devadathan Vs v.Krishnan