The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal against a Family Court decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Upholding the lower court's findings, the High Court held that the wife failed to prove sufficient cruelty or cause for absence.
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 A.M.BABU
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Mat.Appeal.No. 127 of 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 651/2010 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE DATED 20-09-2011
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
RAGINI.V. AGED 37, D/O.C.V.KANNAN,VAZHAYIL HOUSE, P.O KUTTUR VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
VINOD.V.M. AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.V.N.MADHAVAN, VAZHITHALAKKAL HOUSE, P.O MADUKKA, MUNDAKKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN 686 513.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Mat.A.No.127/2012
JUDGMENT
SHAFFIQUE, J
This appeal has been filed against an order passed in O.P.No.651/2010 of the Family Court, Kozhikode. The original petition was filed by the respondent herein seeking restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that the wife is keeping away from him without any valid cause.
3
Mat.A.No.127/2012
M.C.No.96/2011. Common evidence was taken. The husband was examined as PW1 and the wife as RW1. Exts.A1 to A17 were the documents relied upon by the husband and Exts.B1 and B2 were the documents relied upon by the wife. The Family Court on an appreciation of the evidence arrived at a finding that the contentions urged by the respondent was absolutely baseless. She was unable to prove any cruelty being inflicted on her by the husband and therefore it was found that there was no reason for her to remain away from the company of her husband and accordingly granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
4
Mat.A.No.127/2012
had arrived at a conclusion that the letters were actually sent by RW1/wife. Of course, no expert opinion had been obtained regarding the fact as to whether she had written those letters or not. But the fact remains that those letters were issued from Mundakkayam to Kannur and there is no reason why the respondent should fabricate such documents at all.
In the light of the aforesaid factual situation, we don't think that any grounds have been made out to interfere with the judgment of the Family Court. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
A.M.BABU
True copy
JUDGE
kp
P.A.To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the claim of cruelty and granting restitution of conjugal rights.
Whether the evidence led by the wife establishes a reasonable cause for her leaving the matrimonial home.
RAGINI.V.
VINOD.V.M.
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
A.M. BABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
