Partly allowed

Sajeev and Another v. Sreelatha

Kerala HC6 Feb 2019Mat.Appeal/23/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment appeals the Family Court's decision in a matrimonial dispute involving cruelty and a claim for return of gold ornaments. The High Court allowed the divorce appeal, setting aside the grant of divorce while sustaining the decree for the return of gold and money.

What did the court decide?

Divorce granted to Sajeev P.R.; claim for return of gold and money dismissed against him.

Sajeev and Another Vs Sreelatha — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶6

WEDNESDAY,THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 17TH MAGHA, 1940

¶7

Mat.Appeal.No. 23 of 2010

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 203/2009 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR DATED 23-09-2009(COMMON JUDGMENT IN OP.1154/2008 & 203/2009)

¶9

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 SAJEEV P.R., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.RAMESAN, VISHNU NIVAS, EDAYAZHAMKARA, VECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK FROM SIVASAILAM HOUSE, PALLIPRATHUSSERRY KARA, VAIKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶11

2 SHALI AGED 42 YEARS,S/O.GOWRI PUTHENVELI HOUSE, POTTIKKAVALA, CHERUVARANAM KARA, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANADHAN

¶13

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶14

SREELATHA C.K., 34 YEARS, D/O KUTTAPPAN, SIVASAILAM HOUSE, PALLIPRATHUSSERRY KARA, VAIKOM VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.ABHILASH J SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE

¶16

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.02.2019, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.25/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Mat.A.Nos.23 & 25/2010

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶24

WEDNESDAY,THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 17TH MAGHA, 1940

¶25

Mat.Appeal.No. 25 of 2010

¶26

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 1154/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR DATED 23-09-2009(COMMON JUDGMENT IN OP.1154/2008 & 203/2009)

¶27

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶28

SAJEEV P.R., AGED 36 YEARS,S/O RAMESAN, VISHNU NIVAS, EDAYAZHAMKARA, VECHOOR VILLAGE,, VAIKOM TALUK FROM SIVASAILAM HOUSE,, PALLIPRATHUSSERRY KARA, VAIKOM VILALGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶29

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN

¶30

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶31

SREELATHA C.K., 34 YEARS, D/O KUTTAPPAN, SIVASAILAM HOUSE, PALLIPRATHUSSERRY KARA, VAIKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶32

BY ADVS. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE SRI.J.ABHILASH

¶33

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.02.2019, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.23/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

¶35

Mat.A.Nos.23 & 25/2010

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

SHAFFIQUE, J

¶38

These two appeals arise from a common judgment dated 23.9.2009 in O.P.No.203/2009 & 1154/2008 of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. O.P.No.1154/2008 has been filed by the petitioner/husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. O.P.No.203/2009 has been filed by the wife for return of 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value of Rs.1,50,000/- and an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Divorce is rejected and a decree is passed in favour of the wife, for return of gold ornaments and money.

¶39

The short facts of the case are as under and the parties are described as shown in O.P.No.1154/2008 unless otherwise stated. The petitioner and the respondent got married on 28.4.1997 as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. It is the case of the petitioner that, immediately after the marriage they started living in a rented house. But the behaviour of the respondent was very cruel towards him. She made his matrimonial life miserable. He alleged that he was conducting a beauty parlour at vaikom. He purchased certain items of property in which the respondent's name was also included as a joint

¶40

owner. He alleged that she made an attempt to kill him on 24.12.2002 with a knife. She also started filing cases against him.

¶41

¶42

Mat.A.Nos.23 & 25/2010

¶43

The specific allegation made by the appellant/petitioner was that the respondent with the help of some gundas sent him out of his own house and he is presently residing in a rented house. She filed false complaint to the police as well as Women Cell and also filed petition under the Domestic Violence Act. She also did not allow him to continue his beauty parlour, whereas she is conducting a textiles in the name 'Amma Enterprises'.

¶44

The respondent filed objections inter alia stating that the couple were having intimacy even prior to the marriage. However, she was given Rs.50,000/- and 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments as her share and the petitioner had taken away 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. She denied that she had quarrelled with him and that she had attempted to kill him and he was thrown out of his house. According to her, she was ready and willing to live with the petitioner.

¶45

The petitioner filed objection stating that he has not received any gold nor has he appropriated any amount. Before the Family Court common evidence was taken. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and he relied upon Exts.A1 to A5. The respondent was examined as RW1. The Family Court after having appreciated the materials placed on record, dismissed the petition filed by the husband for divorce, however granted a decree in O.P.NO.203/2009 in favour of the respondent/wife.

¶46

¶47

Mat.A.Nos.23 & 25/2010

¶48

With reference to the ground taken in the divorce petition, the petitioner had clearly stated that his wife/respondent used to make false allegations against him of having illicit relationship with other women and has also filed false complaint before the Magistrate's Court. Evidence in the case consists of Ext.A2 complaint filed by the wife before the Sub Inspector of Police Women Cell, Kottayam against the petitioner on 13.12.2007. Allegation was that the petitioner was attempting to sell property and was intending to live with another women. It is urged by the petitioner that on one occasion she tried to kill him and thereafter with the help of 'gundas' he was thrown out of his house. False allegations are made against him alleging illicit relationship with other women. The petitioner in his evidence has categorically stated the aforesaid facts.

¶49

The respondent in her evidence though had denied allegations raised by the petitioner, admits the fact that the petitioner is not living with the respondent. Petitioner's allegation that he was thrown out of the business and his residence is a fact which cannot be denied at this point of time as he is residing separately from the respondent. The marriage between the parties has also broken irretrievably and there is no chance for a re-union. It is evident that unsubstantiated evidence has been made by the wife against the husband of him having illicit relationship and ultimately he is thrown

¶50

¶51

Mat.A.Nos.23 & 25/2010

¶52

out of his house. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that this is a fit case in which divorce ought to have been granted by the Family Court. The Family Court proceeded on the basis that allegations in the complaint are not substantiated. But the facts speaks for itself. This is a clear case of the husband being thrown out and remaining away from his house on account of cruelty. That apart, when allegations are made by the wife against her husband alleging illicit relationship, which is unsubstantiated, that itself amounts to mental cruelty. Hence we are of the view that a decree for divorce has to be granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶53

As far as the claim made by the wife for return of gold ornaments and money is concerned, though the respondent/husband denied the aforesaid facts, the Family Court have appreciated the evidence and found that there is every chance for using the gold and money by the husband and therefore granted a decree for the same. Taking into account the fact that the marriage has already been broken and the Family Court had believed the version of the wife, it is only appropriate to sustain the decree directing return of gold ornaments and money.

¶54

In the result, Mat.A.No.25/2010 is allowed. The judgment in O.P.No.1154/2008 is set aside and the original petition is allowed as under:

¶55

¶56

Mat.A.Nos.23 & 25/2010

¶57

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent shall stand

¶58

dissolved by a decree for divorce.

¶59

Mat.A.No.23/2010 is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

A.M.BABU kp True copy JUDGE

¶65

P.A. To Judge.

Sajeev and Another v. Sreelatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeev and Another v. Sreelatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudharma Vs Madhusoodanan Pillai and Another

Prasanth.P.S Vs Seema Rani

Chellappan Pillai Vs Sudharma and Another

Usha Padmanabhan Vs Mr.Padmanabhan

Sajeev Vs Sreelatha

Mohammed Shafi Vs Soudabi