High Court Appeal praying for admission of matrimonial appeal. Bench considered underlying cruelty allegations including criminal conviction of husband and pending trial for murder. Court dismissed appeal in limine finding rejection of appeal at admission stage justified.
Matrimonial appeal dismissed in limine without admitting it for hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/20TH KARTHIKA, 1936
Mat.Appeal.No. 977 of 2014 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(HMA) NO. 175/2013 of FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA DATED 17-10-2014
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
SANTHOSH, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 42 YEARS, PONNANDETHU, MUTHUKKATTUKARA MURI, NOORNADU, PALAMEL.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
REMYA, D/O.LATE RAJAN KURUP, AGED 28 YEARS, VALLIYATHU VADAKKATHIL, REMYA BHAVANAM, NADUVILE MURI, NOORNADU - 688 001.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-112014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DG
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
Mat.Appeal.No.977 of 2014
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2014
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
2
M.A.No.977/14
she was continuously ill-treated and the husband's relatives had also joined in meting out cruelty was denied by the appellant.
3.The wife tendered evidence as PW1 and the husband as RW1. The undisputed situation is that on a first information lodged by the wife, the husband stands convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of first Class for offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that an appeal is pending against that order of conviction and sentence before the competent criminal appellate court. It is also a matter of record through Exhibit A2 that the appellant is facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he had killed the wife's father. The court below accepted the testimony of wife as PW1 that she was treated with cruelty following the marriage and that she suffered injuries in the assault on 5.11.2011. The court below took note of the fact that cruelty is not merely one that is confined to physical injury. The evidence of the wife that the husband treated her with cruelty from the very inception and that she suffered injuries were accepted by the Family Court.
3
M.A.No.977/14
The court below was justified in taking the view that the husband had treated his wife cruelly. Mental cruelty also cannot be excluded from the situation. The fact of the matter remains that even according to the wife, her father was killed by the husband.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed, in limine.
Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
Sd/- (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
DG
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the matrimonial appeal regarding cruelty and divorce should be admitted.
Santhosh
Remya
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Babu Mathew P. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
