In this matrimonial appeal against a divorce decree, the High Court upheld the Family Court's finding that the wife committed cruelty against her husband. The court relied on oral testimony and the wife's hostile conduct, rejecting the view that pleadings were insufficient.
The appeal was dismissed, and the divorce decree was upheld.
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.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 1176/2016 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR,
THRISSUR
APPELLANT/S:
ROOBI AGED 30 YEARS D/O.PAUL V.V.,VAZHAPPILLY HOUSE, KALATHOD, OLLOOKKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680655. BY ADVS. SHRI RAJITH SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN
RESPONDENT/S:
BIJU PAUL
AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.PAUL LAZAR,AUTOKKARAN HOUSE,AYYANTHOLE P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 003. BY ADV SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JJ.
=========================
Mat. Appeal No.451/2018
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2021
J U D G M E N T
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This appeal is filed at the instance of the wife granting divorce to the respondent-husband. The parties are Christians and their marriage was performed in accordance with the Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act, 1095 (for short, the “Act”) as well as
the ceremonies applicable to them. The marriage was registered
MA 451/2018
-:2:-
under the Act on 8/3/2011 and later it was solemnized on 20/9/2012 in accordance with the Christian rites and ceremonies.
MA 451/2018
-:3:-
persuasion. It is alleged by him that the appellant after quarreling with his mother left the matrimonial home. The
appellant on the other hand alleged that the mother of the respondent was the real cause for the marital disputes. It is further contended by her that the respondent had addiction to watching porn movies and never cared to provide love and affection to her.
Family Court came to a conclusion that divorce has to be granted on the ground of cruelty.
was examined as PW2. PW3 is the police officer before whom the appellant lodged the complaint. On perusal of the complaint,
MA 451/2018
-:4:-
the Family Court noted that wild allegations of cruelty were raised against the respondent and his family. Noting that these complaints were filed prior to the filing of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent, the Family Court concluded to hold that 'cruelty' has been proved. The Family Court also noted that the allegations in the petition are insufficient to attract the ingredients of cruelty to grant a decree of divorce. However, the Family Court relied on the evidence subsequent to the petition and noted that subsequent conduct would also be relevant in a matter related to divorce. The discussions in this regard are referred to at paras.34 to 38 of the impugned order. The Family Court noted that the appellant raised wild allegations against the respondent and his family. It is noted by the Family Court that RW1, the appellant, considered mother of the respondent as a prostitute and father as a pimp. The Family Court noticed the animosity of the appellant against the
MA 451/2018
-:5:-
respondent's mother. The Family Court particularly noted crossexamination of PW1 denigrating the respondent and his family. The Family Court also noticed wild imputations in the crossexamination.
MA 451/2018
-:6:-
the pleadings, nevertheless, we are of the view that the conduct or oral depositions have to be read as adjunct to the pleadings. In a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty one need not narrate every incident of cruelty in such petition. What is necessary to be pleaded is the essential nature of the conduct of the spouse who is at fault. We, therefore, are of the view that the Family Court was not justified in observing that the pleadings were not sufficient to grant a decree of divorce and subsequent conduct alone can be relied upon. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
ms
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court was justified in granting a divorce decree on the ground of cruelty based on testimony and subsequent conduct.
Whether wild allegations against the respondent and his family constitute sufficient evidence of cruelty to grant divorce.
Roobi
Biju Paul
A.Muhamed Mustaque
Dr.Kauser Edappagath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
