The High Court allowed an appeal against a Family Court order rejecting a divorce petition. Finding that the wife abandoned children and falsely alleged cruelty against the military husband, causing severe mental agony, the court set aside the lower order and granted a decree of divorce.
Original petition for divorce allowed; marriage dissolved by decree.
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 MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1940
Mat.Appeal.No. 65 of 2011
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.9.2010 IN OP(HMA) NO. 62/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SOMAN T.R. S/O.VASUDEVAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, AYANIVELIKULANGARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.PRADEEP SMT.T.THASMI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SUDHAMANI, D/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, PULLUMPURATHU THEKKATHIL, VELLANATHURUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, NOW RESIDING AT KOCHUMYTHANATHU VEEDU, S.V.MARKET P.O., KOZHIKODE, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
B/O BY SUDHAMANI (PARTY-IN-PERSON)
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.M.Shaffique & P. Somarajan, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------Mat. Appeal No.65 of 2011 (E) ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6th day of August, 2018
JUDGMENT
A.M. Shaffique, J.
This appeal has been filed by the petitioner in O.P.(HMA) No.62 of 2006 challenging the order dated 9.9.2010 by which his claim for divorce has been rejected by the Family Court.
and the parties are described as they are shown in the original petition.
born in that wedlock. They got separated on 21.3.2005. The original petition was filed inter alia contending that the wife has deserted the petitioner and that she had committed cruelty against the petitioner. As far as desertion is concerned, even according to the petitioner, it was filed before the time specified for claiming desertion. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not insist to argue that point.
Mat. Appeal No.65 of 2011 (E)
:: 2 ::
Mat. Appeal No.65 of 2011 (E)
:: 3 ::
Mat. Appeal No.65 of 2011 (E)
:: 4 ::
contends that the petitioner had committed cruelty, it is relevant to note that he was a Military man and he used to come to his native place only occasionally. There was no situation where physical cruelty had to be meted out against the respondent. It is stated that for some time they were living together at their quarters but there is no evidence to substantiate the alleged cruelty made by the petitioner. PW2, son who had been examined, does not prove the fact that the father had behaved in a cruel manner against the mother.
Mat. Appeal No.65 of 2011 (E)
:: 5 ::
Accordingly, the Matrimonial Appeal is allowed. The order in O.P.(HMA) No.62 of 2006 is set aside and the original petition is allowed. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent shall stand dissolved by a decree for divorce.
sd/A.M. Shaffique Judge
sd/P. Somarajan Judge
ahz/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has proved the case of mental cruelty against the respondent sufficient to grant a divorce.
Whether false allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner constituted mental cruelty.
Soman T.R.
Sudhamani
A.M. Shaffique
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
