Appeal against dismissal of petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Hindu Marriage Act. High Court upheld Family Court's finding that petitioner failed to prove cruelty or desertion, noting dispute centered on wife's employment and was not marital cruelty.
Appeal dismissed on merits; no order as to costs.
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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/26TH SRAVANA, 1939
Mat.Appeal.No. 693 of 2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 513/2003 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM DATED 30-04-2008
APPELLANT:
SANTHOSH, S/O.SADANANDAN, ODANATTU HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN -6.
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR
RESPONDENT:
SASIKALA, D/O/PADMANABHAN, VADAKKEKALARIKKAL ,VALIYA PULLAR, DESAM, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN -6.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN MANNALI
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-07-17, THE COURT ON 17-08-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.M.SHAFFIQUE &
ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mat.Appeal No.693 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of August, 2017
JUDGMENT
Anu Sivaraman, J.
1.This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 30.4.2008
in O.P.No.513/2003 of the Family Court, Ernakulam The original petition was filed by the petitioner-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is contented that marriage was solemnised on 22.10.1995 and a girl child was born in the wedlock. It is stated that the respondent-wife was employed in an Anganvadi at the time of marriage and that she had insisted on continuing the job even after the marriage. It is stated that the entire income earned by her was being utilised according to her own whims and fancies and she continued to give the address of her parental home in all official communications and applications. She had kuries and savings bank account and the address of her parental home was shown in all such documents. She was arrogant and always quarrelled with the petitioner and his parents. It is stated that the respondent's parents also interfered in the
2
MA 693/08
family life and the respondent started showing contempt and disaffection towards the petitioner and his parents. It is stated that the respondent was in the habit of going to her parental home frequently and after being taken home for delivery in the seventh month of pregnancy, she did not return to the matrimonial home. It is stated that the petitioner used to visit her frequently but the respondent and other members of her family treated him with contempt and they did not like his frequent visits. It is stated that he was told by the respondent's father not to enter his house and refused to permit him to see the respondent and his child. Though an attempt was made to bring back the respondent and the child to the matrimonial home on 2.12.2001, the respondent's family did not allow the petitioner to take her with him and his family members were insulted. It is stated that though mediation was attempted, the respondent and her parents were adamant that she should be permitted to work which was not agreeable since there was no one in the petitioner's house to look after the child. On these pleadings, the decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion was prayed for.
3
MA 693/08
2.An objection was filed by the respondent admitting the marriage and birth of the child but denying all allegations of matrimonial cruelty. It was contended that the respondent was working even before the marriage and the problems between the spouses was only due to the adamant stand of the petitioner that she would not be allowed to work under any circumstances. The respondent contented that he had not even attempted to see his child and no amounts had been paid as maintenance to the minor child by the petitioner. The allegation that the respondent and her family members treated the petitioner with cruelty was denied and it was stated that the respondent was willing to live with the petitioner as his wife.
4
MA 693/08
extremely vague. Relying on the oral and documentary
evidence of the parties, the court came to the conclusion that it was only due to the adamant stand of the petitioner that the respondent should not be gainfully employed that conciliation between the parties could not be reached. In the circumstances, it was found that the petitioner had not succeeded in proving cruelty or desertion. The original petition for dissolution of marriage was therefore dismissed.
6.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the abuses and insults which he had to face at the instance of the respondent and her father had been clearly pleaded in the original petition. It is submitted that these pleadings had been substantially proved by his testimony as well. It is therefore contended that the findings of Family Court that the pleadings of matrimonial cruelty had not been satisfactorily proved was completely erroneous. It is submitted before us that the respondent is now gainfully employed abroad and that she also
5
MA 693/08
has no intention of resuming cohabitation. Since the parties have been living apart from the year 2001 onwards, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this is a fit case for the grant of a decree of divorce.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner had miserably failed in proving any of the allegations of cruelty or desertion raised by him in the original petition. It is contended that there was no incident of cruelty by the respondent and that the marriage between the parties had run into troubled waters only because of the egoistical insistence of the petitioner that the respondent should not work outside the house. It is submitted that the respondent had been working even before marriage and is presently gainfully employed abroad. She is still willing to resume the matrimonial relationship in case the petitioner is desirous of the same.
6
MA 693/08
and other members of his family. She was disobedient. She refused to accede to his reasonable requests and was always retaining affinity towards her own house and family. He states in his cross examination that he and his family has no benefit from the respondent's employment and income since she uses her entire income for her own purposes. He admits that he does not want her to work and that two attempts at conciliation had failed on account of the parties failed to agree to this one point.
9.On an examination of the pleadings and the evidence adduced,
it is clear that the petitioner claims that he had been subjected to matrimonial cruelty. This fact is completely denied by the respondent. From an analysis of the evidence adduced, it is clear that the allegations of arrogance, disobedience and bad behaviour are all directly linked to the refusal of his wife to give up her employment. It is on this short issue that all attempts at mediation failed. It is pertinent in this context to note that it has come out in evidence that the respondent was working even before her marriage. Her desire to continue to work and earn her own income is being characterized by the
MA 693/08
7
petitioner as an act of rivalry and insult as against him. From the evidence adduced, it is clear that the petitioner has not succeeded in proving any other instance of matrimonial cruelty against him by the respondent. In the above circumstances, the finding of the court below that the petitioner had failed to prove either desertion or cruelty as against the respondent is well founded. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/- A.M.Shaffique, Judge
sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge
sj
PA TO JUDGE
/TRUE COPY/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner proved grounds of cruelty and desertion for dissolution of marriage
Whether refusal of petitioner's claim that respondent must not work amounts to matrimonial cruelty
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santhosh
Sasikala
A.M.Shaffique
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
