The petitioner sought to set aside the Family Court judgment dismissing his divorce petition. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the allegation of cruelty was not proved and the Family Court had sufficient material to deny the divorce petition.
The Matrimonial Appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Family Court was affirmed.
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 N.ANIL KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 2ND ASWINA, 1941
Mat.Appeal.No.249 OF 2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 1488/2006 DATED 29-10-2011 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHAJU JOHN, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.JOHN, PANJIKARAN HOUSE, KARINGANTHURUTH DESOM KONGORPILLY.P.O., ALANGAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
TINCY, AGED 33 YEARS D/O. JOSEPH, VITHAYATHIL HOUSE, PANAYIKULAM DESOM, PANAYIKULAM.P.O.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL R1 BY ADV. SRI.NOEL JOSEPH R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.R.PRAMOD R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.REJANISH R1 BY ADV. SRI.SANU MATHEW
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.8.2019, THE COURT ON 24.09.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Mat.A.No.249/2012
JUDGMENT
SHAFFIQUE, J
This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.No.1488/2006 of Family Court, Ernakulam. The original petition is filed challenging the judgment by which his claim for divorce had been dismissed by the Family Court.
The parties got married as per christian religious ceremonies on 7.3.2005. According to the petitioner, after the marriage the respondent neglected her and stated quarreling with him. He was not allowed to speak to his sister and mother as the respondent did not like it. She became furious and quarreled with the petitioner's sister and mother. She was working at the office of the JRG securities. Though she availed 2 weeks' leave, later she canceled it and went for work. She was not willing to visit the relative as demanded by the custom and it caused mental agony to the petitioner. After 75 days of marriage, petitioner went to Abu-Dhabi. He used to sent money to his father. Knowing about the same, the respondent made a hue and cry. She threatened to commit suicide. Though he demanded the respondent to live with him, she refused and ultimately took a rented house at Kakkanad and began to live together. Respondent took up quarrel on silly matters and assaulted him. On a particular day she inflicted injury on her stomach by a
3
Mat.A.No.249/2012
knife stating that she did not want the baby of the petitioner. She was taken for counseling. But her attitude did not change. She gave birth to a child on 11.10.2006. On 29.10.2006, when he visited her house to see the child she didn't permit him to see the child. Thereafter, the respondent gave false complaint before the Binanipuram Police Station alleging that the petitioner and his parents tried to attack her. On ascertaining the true facts, the police directed her not to file false complaints.
4
Mat.A.No.249/2012
have been living separately for about 12 years and there is no chance for a reunion. The marital tie has been broken and therefore it is only appropriate to pass an order of divorce. That apart, it is submitted that the respondent is not capable of leading a marital life. Though the appellant/petitioner made several attempts to ensure that she behaved in a proper manner, her behaviour was intolerable and she did not even permit him to see his child. The Family Court after evaluating the evidence of PW1 and PW2 found that the allegation of cruelty against the petitioner/husband has not been proved. First of all, there is no specific allegation of cruelty and secondly, the wife in her evidence has stated that she has been put to harassment at the hands of husband and his relatives. Her evidence is supported by the evidence of RW2, who mediated the matter between the couple. Under such circumstances, when the court below had relied on sufficient material to deny divorce, we don't find any ground to interfere.
Mat. Appeal is hence dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
N.ANIL KUMAR
True copy JUDGE
kp
P.A. To Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the marital tie between the parties has been irretrievably broken down due to separation, cruelty, and refusal to reunite.
Whether the Family Court erred in finding that the allegation of cruelty against the husband was not proved.
Shaju John
Tincy
A.M. Shaffique
N. Anil Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
