Counsel argued on behalf of the petitioner regarding the Family Court's denial of divorce and the respondent's allegation of cruelty. The High Court found no perversity in the lower court's judgment that denied divorce and restored conjugal rights.
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 MARY JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1941
Mat.Appeal.No.87 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 1059/2008 DATED 08-08-2012 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
MILKA JOSE AGED 32 YEARS D/O.JOSE,KOLANGADAN (PUTHERI) HOUSE, PALLIKULAM DESOM,THRISSUR VILLAGE AND DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SMT.LEKHA SURESH SRI.ASHOK SURESH
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
C.O. FRANCIS, AGED 43, S/O.LATE OUSEPH, CHITTILAPPILLY KUNNATH HOUSE, PARAPPUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-01-2020, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.200/2013, THE COURT ON 0903-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.87 & 200/2013
-:2:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1941
Mat.Appeal.No.200 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 725/2008 DATED 08-08-2012 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MILKA JOSE AGED 32 YEARS D/O JOSE, KOLANGADAN (PUTHERI) HOUSE, PALLIKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE & DISTRICT
BY ADVS. SMT.LEKHA SURESH SRI.ASHOK SURESH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
C.O. FRANCIS, AGED 43, S/O LATE OUSEPH, CHITTILAPPILLY KUNNATH HOUSE, P.O, PARAPPUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680552
R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-01-2020, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.87/2013, THE COURT ON 09-03-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.87 & 200/2013
-:3:-
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2020
Shaffique, J.
These two appeals arise from a common judgment dated 8/8/2012 in OP.Nos.725/2008 and 1059/2008 of the Family Court, Thrissur. Mat.Appeal No.87/2013 has been filed by the respondent/wife in OP No. 1059/2008 and Mat.Appeal No. 200/2013 has been filed by the petitioner/wife in OP.No.725/2008. O.P.No.725/2008 has been filed by the wife seeking divorce under Section 10 of the Divorce Act. OP No.1059/2008 has been filed by the husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
Mat.Appeal Nos.87 & 200/2013
-:4:-
was a conciliation among them and they started living in a rented house at Puthussery, the assault continued demanding more money and ornaments and finally she had to leave the matrimonial home. She alleged that on a particular date, she was pushed towards the wall and on account of which she sustained injury on her eardrum. When the threats continued, she filed a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of police and on the instruction of mediators, both attended a retreat at Kuzhikkatussery in the year 2005. Thereafter, again they resided together. But his alcoholic tendency continued and there was further demand for more money. She was harassed and she was asked not to go for any job and ultimately her parents had to take her away from the matrimonial home.
Mat.Appeal Nos.87 & 200/2013
-:5:-
contentions of the parties held that when the petitioner had made open accusation against her husband which were baseless, and picked up quarrels with him and ultimately left the matrimonial home without any reason, which amounts to cruelty against the husband, and while accepting the evidence of RW1, the Court below held that there was absolutely no evidence to prove that husband had committed any cruelty towards his wife. In such circumstances, the Family Court denied divorce and allowed the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that there was no valid reason for the wife to remain away from the matrimonial home.
side.
Mat.Appeal Nos.87 & 200/2013
-:6:-
unaware of most of the allegations raised by PW1. It was found that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 were self contradictory. During evidence, PW1 has clearly expressed that she was not interested to live with her husband and to continue the conjugal relationship. The main allegation of the petitioner was that the respondent was hot tempered and was rude towards her and that he, being an alcoholic, used to manhandle her at all times. Their child was examined before Court as PW4. Family Court observed that petitioner had made PW4 to depose against her father. PW4 had made certain allegations which were not even mentioned in the petition. Therefore, the said evidence was not taken into consideration. The Family Court observed that the conduct of the wife itself amounts to cruelty and her behaviour had caused serious impact on the health and mind of the husband which had led to separation. It is observed that the petitioner had made open accusation, baseless and cruel complaint against her husband, especially when the respondent went to enquire regarding the minor children. It was found that RW1 was very loving and affectionate towards PW1 and children and his evidence is corroborated by the evidence of RW2, his elder
Mat.Appeal Nos.87 & 200/2013
-:7:-
brother. RW3 and RW4 are the sisters-in-law of the respondent. They were also residing along with the petitioner and the respondent in the tharavadu house. Their evidence would indicate that they were all very affectionate and loving towards the petitioner, and according to them, there is no reason for a divorce.
Mat.Appeals are therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
Rp
JUDGE
True Copy PS to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court committed any error in denying divorce at the instance of the petitioner.
Whether the allegation of cruelty by the wife was proved.
Whether there was any compelling reason for the wife to remain away from the matrimonial home.
Milka Jose
C.O. Francis
A.M. Shaffique
Mary Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
