Allowed

R. Rejimon v. K.K. Manju

Kerala HC20 Oct 2022Mat.Appeal/165/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the husband's appeal to dissolve the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, citing failed reconciliation and one party withholding consent for separation. It dismissed the appeal challenging the net counter-claim decree but partially allowed a cross objection to enhance child maintenance to Rs. 5,000.

What did the court decide?

Marriage dissolved. Decree for return of 12 1/4 sovereigns of gold and Rs. 1 Lakh patrimony upheld. Child maintenance enhanced to Rs. 5,000/month.

R. Rejimon Vs K.K. Manju — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 28TH ASWINA, 1944

¶7

MAT.APPEAL NO. 165 OF 2016

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1187/2011 OF FAMILY

¶9

COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶10

APPELLANT:

¶11

R. REJIMON, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O RAVEENDRAN, NAMBYATT VEETTIL, KUTHIATHODU P.O., KODAMTHURUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.B.PRAMOD SMT.R.REJI ATTINGAL

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

K.K. MANJU, D/O KUMARAN, KUNNEVELI VEEDU, PALLUPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK 688 524

¶15

BY ADV SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

¶16

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2022, ALONG WITH CO.90/2016, 197/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

MAT.APPEAL NOs. 165 OF 2016 & 197 OF 2016 AND CO NO. 90 OF 2016

¶18

..2..

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶24

THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 28TH ASWINA, 1944

¶25

CO NO. 90 OF 2016

¶26

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Mat.Appeal 165/2016 OF HIGH

¶27

COURT OF KERALA

¶28

PETITIONER:

¶29

K.K. MANJU, D/O KUMARAN, KUNNEVELI VEEDU, PALLUPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK 688 524

¶30

BY ADV SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

¶31

RESPONDENT:

¶32

R. REJIMON, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O RAVEENDRAN, NAMBYATT VEETTIL, KUTHIATHODU P.O., KODAMTHURUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK

¶33

BY ADV SRI.B.PRAMOD

¶34

THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2022, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.165/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

MAT.APPEAL NOs. 165 OF 2016 & 197 OF 2016 AND CO NO. 90 OF 2016

¶36

..3..

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶38

PRESENT

¶39

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶40

¶41

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶42

THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 28TH ASWINA, 1944

¶43

MAT.APPEAL NO. 197 OF 2016

¶44

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1187/2011 OF FAMILY

¶45

COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶46

APPELLANT:

¶47

R.REJI MON, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, NAMBYATT VEETTIL, KUTHIATHODU P.O., KODAMTHURUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK.

¶48

BY ADV SRI.B.PRAMOD

¶49

RESPONDENT:

¶50

K.K.MANJU, KUNNEVELI VEEDU, PALLUPPURAM P.O, CHERTHALA TALUK-688 524

¶51

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2022, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.165/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶52

MAT.APPEAL NOs. 165 OF 2016 & 197 OF 2016 AND CO NO. 90 OF 2016

¶53

..4..

¶54

J U D G M E N T

¶55

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J

¶56

These appeals are filed at the instance of the husband. In Mat. Appeal No.165 of 2016, the respondent-wife also filed cross objection aggrieved by dismissal of her certain claims for

¶57

recovery of gold ornaments, money and also on the quantum of maintenance awarded.

¶58

The husband filed O.P No.1187 of 2011 on

¶59

the file of the Family Court, Alappuzha for divorce on the ground of cruelty. This has been dismissed. In that original petition, the respondent-wife filed counter claim for recovery

¶60

of gold ornaments, money, maintenance etc. That was allowed in part. Challenging dismissal of divorce petition, the husband filed Mat. Appeal No.165 of 2016. He also filed Mat. Appeal No.197 of 2016 challenging the decree granted in favour of the respondent-wife in the counterclaim. The

¶61

respondent-wife filed a cross objection in Mat.

¶62

MAT.APPEAL NOs. 165 OF 2016 & 197 OF 2016 AND CO NO. 90 OF 2016

¶63

..5..

¶64

Appeal No.165 of 2016 to the extent her claim has been declined in a counterclaim.

¶65

Ezhava community. Their marriage was solemnised on 10.04.2008 in accordance with religious rites

¶66

and ceremonies applicable to them. In the

¶67

marriage, a boy child was born. According to the husband, after the first month of the marriage itself, the respondent-wife exhibited indifferent

¶68

attitude to him and his family members. It is alleged by him that she portrayed symptoms of mental illness. According to him, the wife remains always in a closed room and threatened of committing suicide. It was his case that she

¶69

abused everyone at the home using filthy languages. It is further submitted that local SNDP unit had intervened in this matter and attempted to arrive at an amicable settlement. That was failed.

¶70

MAT.APPEAL NOs. 165 OF 2016 & 197 OF 2016 AND CO NO. 90 OF 2016

¶71

..6..

¶72

that the attempt of the appellant-husband was to

¶73

make her a mental patient to get out of the marriage. She alleged that her father-in-law tried to sexually harass her. It is further stated by her that it is her father-in-law misleaded everyone in the home to disbelieve her. According to her, she remained inside the closed room to escape from the harassment of her father-

¶74

in-law, when she was alone at the home. She setup a case of cruelty towards her. The wife stated that often she was denied food and basic needs.

¶75

As seen from the pleadings and evidence, they lived as husband and wife only for a period of three years. The wife left the matrimonial home in the year 2011. Thereafter, there was no cohabitation between the parties. It is also seen that SNDP union has held discussion with the parties and for a short period they cohabited

¶76

after counselling at KVM Hospital, Cherthala.

¶77

MAT.APPEAL NOs. 165 OF 2016 & 197 OF 2016 AND CO NO. 90 OF 2016

¶78

..7..

¶79

The wife has no case that she wants to live with her husband. On the other hand her case would show that she suffered cruelty at the hands of her in-laws. It is important to note she raised allegations against her father-in-law alleging that he attempted to harass her sexually. Though a plea of attempt of molestation was taken, that was given up later. The fact clearly shows that the parties are not amenable to reconcile and live together. The marriage has been a failure for them for all practical purposes. It is to be noted that the wife has no case that she can live with her husband and the matrimonial obligation and cohabitation can be resumed. The pleadings on both sides clearly establish that the marriage is now practically dead and it cannot be revived. It is to be noted that the wife raised a counter claim for return of gold ornaments, money etc. That has been allowed. She also raised a claim for maintenance. The parties could not arrive a

¶80

MAT.APPEAL NOs. 165 OF 2016 & 197 OF 2016 AND CO NO. 90 OF 2016

¶81

..8..

¶82

a settlement for the reason that there are

¶83

monetary claims. We often find that in order to

¶84

wreak vengeance to other spouse, one of the

¶85

spouse withhold the consent for mutual

¶86

separation, even though they are convinced that the marriage is practically dead. This is one of

¶87

the case where we find that the wife is

¶88

withholding her consent for mutual separation for no reason. The cruelty, in fact, exists for both

¶89

to claim divorce. But only one has come forward

¶90

for the obvious reason that other has raised a

¶91

monetary claim. We in Beena M.S v. Shino G. Babu

¶92

[2022 (2) KLT 139] held that one party

¶93

withholding consent in a marriage practically

¶94

failed, that itself amounts to cruelty. In the

¶95

above circumstances, we are of the view that

¶96

there is no point in retaining the marriage, but only to dissolve invoking the provisions of the

¶97

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Accordingly, we allow the Mat. Appeal No.165 of 2016 and dissolve the

¶98

MAT.APPEAL NOs. 165 OF 2016 & 197 OF 2016 AND CO NO. 90 OF 2016

¶99

..9..

¶100

marriage solemnised on 10.04.2008.

¶101

In regard to the counter claim raised by the wife, according to her, 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments were misappropriated. It is also her case that Rs.1 Lakh was given at the time of marriage towards patrimony. Ext.B1, the marriage certificate recorded at the SNDP Branch would show that the wife had sufficient gold ornaments

¶102

at the time of marriage as claimed by her. According to her, out of total gold ornaments, 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments were taken away and misappropriated. The witnesses examined on the side of the wife clearly establish the case of misappropriation of the gold ornaments to the extent found by the Family Court. The Family

¶103

Court found that 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments

¶104

were taken away. The witnesses who were

¶105

examined, in fact, where the office bearers of SNDP, who have intervened in this family dispute.

¶106

These independent witnesses gave evidence in

¶107

MAT.APPEAL NOs. 165 OF 2016 & 197 OF 2016 AND CO NO. 90 OF 2016

¶108

..10..

¶109

support of the claim of wife. This lend credence

¶110

to the claim of the wife. that her gold

¶111

ornaments have been misappropriated. It is to be

¶112

noted that when husband was cross examined, he

¶113

agreed to give the gold ornaments, if the wife agrees for a mutual divorce. The overall evidence would clearly show that husband had misappropriated the 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The Family Court noted that out of 15 sovereigns 2 ¾ sovereigns of gold ornaments have to be set off as admittedly the same is continued

¶114

in the possession of the wife. Accordingly, the

¶115

Family Court granted the decree only to the

¶116

extent of return of 12 ¼ sovereigns of gold

¶117

ornaments.

¶118

In regard to the claim for return of

¶119

patrimony of Rs.1 Lakh, the husband admitted the receipt of Rs.1 Lakh. According to him, Rs.1

¶120

Lakh was received for purchasing gold ornaments.

¶121

The onus is on the husband to prove that this was

¶122

MAT.APPEAL NOs. 165 OF 2016 & 197 OF 2016 AND CO NO. 90 OF 2016

¶123

..11..

¶124

utilised for the purchase of gold ornaments. In

¶125

the absence of any other evidence, it has to be

¶126

assumed that Rs.1 Lakh was received towards

¶127

patrimony. We find there is no error in the

¶128

findings rendered by the Family Court. The Family Court also awarded maintenance at the rate

¶129

of Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- to the

¶130

child. We are of the view that the maintenance

¶131

awarded to the child has to be increased to

¶132

Rs.5,000/- from the date of this judgment.

¶133

The wife raised a cross objection to the

¶134

extent of disallowing her claim. She claimed the

¶135

value of 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments. What was allowed only the value of 12 ¼ sovereigns of

¶136

gold ornaments. The Family Court had given

¶137

reason for disallowing her claim. On deeper

¶138

consideration of the facts, pleadings and

¶139

evidence we find no reason to interfere with the

¶140

other findings so rendered by the Family Court. Accordingly, we pass the following orders:

¶141

MAT.APPEAL NOs. 165 OF 2016 & 197 OF 2016 AND CO NO. 90 OF 2016

¶142

..12..

¶143

granting a decree of divorce. The cross objection filed in Mat. Appeal 165 of 2016 is

¶144

partly allowed enhancing the maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the child from the date of

¶145

this judgment. Mat. Appeal No.197 of 2016 is

¶146

also dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶147

II) The husband is given two months time to

¶148

return 12 ¼ sovereigns of gold ornaments. If it

¶149

is not given within two months, the respondent is entitled to claim the value of the gold ornaments as on the date of realisation.

¶150

III) The appellant in Mat. Appeal No.197 of 2016 is given two months time to pay Rs.1 Lakh. If any default, the respondent can execute

¶151

the decree in accordance with the terms and

¶152

directions in the decree.

¶153

Sd/-

¶154

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE Sd/-

¶155

SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE

¶156

R. Rejimon v. K.K. Manju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Rejimon v. K.K. Manju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Remya M. K. Vs Mahesh T.

Kunhimoonte Purakkal Manaf Vs Cheriya Madathil Beena

Lekha P.Chandran Vs the District Police Superintendent

Sabina Vs Anvarudeen

Aswathy Sidhardhan Vs Adarsh C.B

A. Nilarudeen Vs S. Rasia