Kerala High Court
P.K.Sadhasivan vs Thankamani on 26 October, 2018
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Mat.Appeal.No. 838 of 2010
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1391/2005 of FAMILY
COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/S:
P.K.SADHASIVAN
AGED 53, THAIPPURA (H), POYKKATTUSSERY,,
CHENGAMANADU, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE,, ALUVA
THALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.V.K.VEERAVUNNY
RESPONDENT/S:
THANKAMANI
AGED 48, THAIPPURA (H), POYKKATTUSSERY,,
CHENGAMANADU, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE,, ALUVA
THALUK, PIN-683 578.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.V.REJANISH
SRI.SUNIL KURIAKOSE
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal.No. 838 of 2010
-2-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.No.1391 of 2005 challenging the judgment dated 31.07.2010 of the Family Court, Ernakulam. The original petition has been filed by the appellant seeking divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty.
2. The facts of the case would disclose that the appellant married the respondent on 2.4.1977. Three male children were born out of the wedlock. All of them had became majors. The contention is that in the year 1980, the appellant constructed a house in the property purchased in the joint name of the parties and the respondent is residing in that house. However, for the last 5 years, there was no contact with the appellant and his children and Mat.Appeal.No. 838 of 2010 -3- she had not taken care to look after their requirements and the marital obligations towards the appellant. It is also stated that she was behaving in a cruel manner against the appellant. The respondent denied the allegation. She stated that after about three years from the date of marriage, the family shifted to the house constructed in the joint property belonging to them. The relationship between the parties were cordial initially for about ten years and thereafter, she was ill-treated physically and mentally. He never allowed the respondent to participate in the marriage of her brothers. Despite the intervention of the relatives, his attitude did not change and when the ill- treatment continued, she was compelled to return to her parental home in December 2001. Thereafter, the appellant had not cared to take Mat.Appeal.No. 838 of 2010 -4- her back. The appellant further constructed a house and shifted his residence to that building. During May, 2002, when the respondent reached the house of the appellant, the appellant did not permit the respondent to enter into the house. According to her, the allegation of cruelty as well as desertion was without any basis. She was not permitted to reside with him, though she attempted to go back to her matrimonial home.
3. Before the family court, the appellant was examined as PW1. Respondent witnesses were examined as RW1 and RW2. The family court, on evidence, found that the allegation of cruelty was totally baseless and the case of desertion had not been made out.
4. RW2 is none other than the son of the couple. He in his evidence had clearly stated that the father and the mother were living Mat.Appeal.No. 838 of 2010 -5- separately since the father did not permit the mother to enter the house. His evidence by itself is enough to negative the contention of desertion. As far as allegation of cruelty is concerned, no evidence was adduced in the matter. Unless specific allegation are made regarding cruelty, it is not possible for the court to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty. The respondent has a case that he had ill-treated her mentally and physically and she was not even permitted to go for the marriage of her brothers. Ultimately, she had to leave her matrimonial home and reside at her parental home. The family court found from the evidence on record that no case of cruelty has been made out.
The family court having properly considered the evidence and arrived at a finding, rejecting the claim of the appellant, we do not find any Mat.Appeal.No. 838 of 2010 -6- ground to interfere with the same. The appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE Scl/27.10