Kerala High Court
M.N.Padmanabhan Nair vs K.Chandrika @ K.Chandrika Nair on 17 August, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/28TH BHADRA, 1939
Mat.Appeal.No.932 of 2009 ( )
----------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 979/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED
17/08/2009
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP::
--------------------------
M.N.PADMANABHAN NAIR
S/O.NEELAKANDA PANICKER, FROM KATTUKOOTHAPPALLIL HOUSE,
CHEMBU P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW
RESIDING AT C/O.DR.M.N.C.NAIR, KOVILAKATH VEEDU,
PAREKATT LANE, PUNKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR
SRI.K.B.DAYAL
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN OP::
----------------------------
K.CHANDRIKA @ K.CHANDRIKA NAIR
D/O.KESAVA PILLA, PADINJATTEDATH HOUSE,
THOTTAKOM P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.DELEEP RAJ
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MURALIKRISHNAN NAIR
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
&
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mat.Appeal No.932 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of September 2017
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.No.979/2008 challenging the dismissal of the petition for divorce filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2. A petition was filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner was aged 73 years at the time of filing the petition and the respondent was 59 years. Their marriage was solemnized on 15/04/1967. According to the petitioner, he has spent all his earnings for his wife and children and the daughters were given in marriage. He was working in Gulf until 1994 and when he returned, he was not treated with any love or affection. It is alleged that the respondent even induced the children against the petitioner. He alleges that cruelty was meted out against him and therefore he had to leave the house and he was living in an Ashramam and he had to return back after four months due to the intervention of his relatives. It is also contended that the respondent had deserted the Mat.Appeal No.932/2009 2 petitioner.
3. The respondent filed objection. According to her, the petitioner used to manhandle her after consuming liquor. She denied the allegations made by the petitioner. She was always willing to look after the petitioner, but he left the house on 15/02/2009. The respondent had undergone a major operation in October 2008 and she had to reside with her daughter. She had even executed a Will permitting the petitioner to continue his residence in the house. She also denied the other allegations.
4. The above case was jointly tried along with O.P.No.116/2009 and common evidence was taken. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and the witness was examined as PW2. Respondent was examined as RW1.
5. The Family Court found that there is no evidence to prove the alleged cruelty. No specific allegations have been raised. They were living together for quite a long time. PW2 is the sister of PW1 who deposed that the relationship of the couple was not cordial and she had interfered in their dispute. The Family Court found that there is no evidence to prove desertion or cruelty and the evidence adduced by PWs1 and 2 are not sufficient.
6. It is relevant to note that the petition is being prosecuted at the fag end of their life and the petition itself was Mat.Appeal No.932/2009 3 filed after 42 years of their marriage. If at all there was some matrimonial dispute between them, at the fag end of their married life, no specific evidence has been brought out in order to arrive at a conclusion that any cruelty has been inflicted by the wife. In regard to desertion, RW1 had deposed that she was at her daughter's house after a major operation and there is no evidence to prove the allegation of desertion. It is admitted in evidence by the petitioner that he had voluntarily gone to Ashramam.
7. Having regard to the totality of circumstances and on perusal of the evidence adduced, we are of the view that no case has been made out to interfere with the findings of the Court below. The Court below has considered the evidence in the proper perspective and dismissed the petition for divorce.
No grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment of the Family Court. This appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) (sd/-) (ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE) jsr True Copy P.S.to Judge