Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 197 (KER)

Sujeetha Thomson v. M. P. Devassy

2002-03-20

R.RAJENDRA BABU

body2002
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner/wife filed this petition for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 2. The allegations in the petition briefly are as follows : The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 14.11.1999 at St. George, Church, Edappally in accordance with the religious rites of Christian community. After the marriage the petitioner and the respondent lived together in the parental house of the petitioner till 7.10.2000. The parents of the petitioner came to know about the marriage proposal of the respondent through a newspaper advertisement, wherein he had expressed his willingness to stay in the wife's house and accordingly the above proposal was considered. The petitioner and her parents were made to believe that the respondent had passed Pre-degree and ITI and was employed at FC OEN Ltd. and was having monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/-. At the time of marriage the petitioner was a Post-graduate in Hindi Language. At the time of marriage 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the petitioner by her parents. Even from the very inception of the marriage, the respondent was not showing any sort of love or affection towards the petitioner and he used to pick up quarrel with the petitioner every day for some reason or other and he was ill-treating her both physically and mentally. On several occasions he assaulted her. In August 2000 he slapped on her cheeks. As the respondent was not looking after her affairs, she had to depend on her mother for her day to day expenses. In fact, their expenses were met by the mother of the petitioner, who was employed in a Bank. The petitioner requested, the respondent to meet a part of the household expenses, but he refused and hence she decided to have a job of her own and she joined for B.Ed. Course in SAM Training College, Poothotta. 3. In fact, their expenses were met by the mother of the petitioner, who was employed in a Bank. The petitioner requested, the respondent to meet a part of the household expenses, but he refused and hence she decided to have a job of her own and she joined for B.Ed. Course in SAM Training College, Poothotta. 3. During the first week after the marriage the respondent ill-treated the petitioner and compelled her to demand her parents for the purchase of a motor bike for him and at the request of the petitioner, her parents agreed to buy a motor bike for the respondent by taking a loan in the name of the mother of the petitioner: But, the respondent insisted to purchase the motor bike in his name and the parents of the petitioner paid him an amount of Rs. 46,000/- for the purchase of the motor bike. Later, he demanded the petitioner to ask her parents to sell their old ambassador car and purchase a new car in his name. As the parents did not agree to the above demand, the respondent picked up quarrel with the petitioner on several days. As demanded by the respondent, the parents of the petitioner had to sell their house and the land at Palarivattom for an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs. They decided to construct a house in the 8 cents of land belonging to the father of the petitioner at Koonammavu, Varappuzha, but, the respondent insisted to purchase a house near his place of employment and accordingly they purchased 10 cents of land at Udayamperoor for Rs. 2 lakhs in the name of the mother of the petitioner. Even after the purchase of the property, the respondent used to pick up quarrel with the parents of the petitioner demanding transfer of the property and the residential building in his name. The respondent even refused to take her along with him and was in the habit of abusing her and her parents in filthy language. It was his habit to desert her and leave the house. On three occasions she persuaded him to come back and stay with them. They started residing in the new house from 1.10.2000 onwards. The respondent even refused to take her along with him and was in the habit of abusing her and her parents in filthy language. It was his habit to desert her and leave the house. On three occasions she persuaded him to come back and stay with them. They started residing in the new house from 1.10.2000 onwards. As he was demanding transfer of the property and the building in his name, the parents of the petitioner decided to execute a will bequeathing their new house in the name of the petitioner. But, the respondent insisted to transfer the properties in his name or to give Rs. 3 lakhs to him and he caught hold of the hair of the petitioner and assaulted her. When the mother of the petitioner tried to prevent him, he kicked on her abdomen and assaulted the father. Thereafter he took a knife from his pocket and threatened them of dire consequences and went out of the house taking all his articles and thereby he deserted the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner prayed for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 4. The respondent filed an objection denying all the allegations levelled against him in the petition. The respondent passed Pre-degree and ITI course and was doing B.Sc. (IGNOU) and was employed in OEN having a monthly salary of Rs. 2,900/-. He did not represent that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 5,000/-. The respondent was staying in the house of the petitioner and the allegation that he was not showing any love and affection towards the petitioner was absolutely false. He never assaulted or abused the petitioner or her parents. In fact, the parents of the petitioner were ill-treating him without any reason and they were always complaining that the represent was not having a very decent salary and was not having sufficient educational qualifications. The respondent was always very affectionate towards the petitioner and she was not having any complaint against him. The day to day expenses of the family was attended to by the respondent also. He had to attend to over time duty and also night shifts and the petitioner and her parents were fully aware of the same. There was no occasion for the respondent to assault the petitioner or her mother. The day to day expenses of the family was attended to by the respondent also. He had to attend to over time duty and also night shifts and the petitioner and her parents were fully aware of the same. There was no occasion for the respondent to assault the petitioner or her mother. He purchased a motor bike with his own money and he never made any demand for the purchase of the motor bike in his name with the money of the petitioner or her parents. He never demanded for the purchase of any property in his name and all the allegations against him are false. In fact, the parents of the petitioner were not satisfied with his educational qualifications and the salary and hence the Original Petition was filed at their instance. 5. The petitioner was examined as PW.1 and two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the petitioner. The respondent was examined as RW.1 and Ext.B1 was marked. The learned counsel on both sides were heard. 6. The petitioner/wife filed this Original Petition for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 14.11.1999 and the respondent was staying in the house of the petitioner. The petitioner when examined as PW.1 had narrated the instances of cruel behaviour from the respondent. Her evidence would reveal that she had been assaulted physically on more than one occasion. Further, there was a demand from the respondent to purchase a motor bike for him and he insisted to purchase the property in his name. PW.2 is the co-brother of the respondent. He had also narrated the instances of insulting and cruel behaviour from the part of the respondent. PW.3 is the mother of the petitioner. She had also given a version consistent with the version of PW.1 regarding the instances of cruel behaviour from the part of the respondent. Once the respondent had assaulted PW.3 also. The consistent versions given by PWs.1 to 3 would clearly establish the cruel behaviour of the respondent towards the petitioner. No reasons are there to doubt the veracity of the consistent version given by PWs.1 to 3. 7. The respondent was examined as RW.1. Once the respondent had assaulted PW.3 also. The consistent versions given by PWs.1 to 3 would clearly establish the cruel behaviour of the respondent towards the petitioner. No reasons are there to doubt the veracity of the consistent version given by PWs.1 to 3. 7. The respondent was examined as RW.1. His contention was that the petition was filed at the instance of PW.3, who did not like him though the petitioner was always loving and affectionate towards him. It was in evidence that the petitioner was doing her B.Ed. Course in the SAM Training College, Poothotta and the respondent used to meet her in the college. In fact, without her knowledge, he recorded the conversation between himself and the petitioner and he produced the cassette before this Court. The above conduct of the respondent itself was an insult to the petitioner, which would amount to mental cruelty. The evidence of RW.1 would also indicate that he had left the house on more than one occasion picking up quarrel with PWs.1 and 3. Thus, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 would establish that the petitioner is entitled to get a decree dissolving her marriage on the ground of cruelty. In the result, this Original Petition is allowed. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, which was solemnized on 14.11.1999 at St. George Church, Edappally, is hereby dissolved by a decree nisi.