Kerala High Court
Ravikumar vs Lathika on 13 March, 2020
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1941
Mat.Appeal.No.529 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.545/2013 DATED 21-02-2014 OF FAMILY
COURT, MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RAVIKUMAR
AGED 47 YEARS
(GOVERNMENT SERVANT),
S/O. SUKUMARA PILLAI,
PANTHAPLAVIL VEETIL,
CHERUTHANA P.O., CHERUTHANA VILLAGE,
KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA - 690 563.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
SRI.K.JAGADEESH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
LATHIKA
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O. BHARATHIYAMMA,
PEROOR VEETIL, CHITTOOR CHERI,
POMANA P.O., PONMANA VILLAGE,
KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM - 691 583.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA KUMAR (MANGALAM)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA KUMAR MANGALAM
R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RETNAKARAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal.No.529 OF 2014
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of March 2020 Shaffique,J This appeal is filed by the petitioner in OP.No.545 of 2013 of the Family court, Mavelikkara.
2. The petitioner married the respondent as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies on 4.2.1990 and two children were born in the wedlock. According to him, the respondent had a love affair even before the marriage and she continued the relationship. He also alleged that he has certain doubt regarding the paternity of the second child. He further contented that his wife has deserted him since 1.12.1998. Hence, he sought for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The respondent denied the allegations. According to her, she had suffered cruelty at the hands of the petitioner, as he was demanding more money and Mat.Appeal.No.529 OF 2014 3 dowry. Later her brothers have made arrangements for purchase of certain item of land near the school in which the petitioner was working and a building was constructed. They started living in the said building. The residence was very near to the school. Petitioner came only once and thereafter he left the place and started residing with his sister. Therefore the contention of the respondent is that the petitioner had deserted her.
3. Evidence in the case consisted of oral testimony of the petitioner as PW1. The respondent was examined as RW1. Ext.A1 and Exts.B1 to B6 were the documents relied upon by either side.
4. With reference to the allegation of cruelty, other than the oral testimony of the petitioner, there was no other evidence. Perusal of the averments in the petition and evidence indicates that, the petitioner while Mat.Appeal.No.529 OF 2014 4 being examined as PW1 admitted the fact that the building was constructed near the school. The Family Court did not believe the version of the petitioner regarding the allegation of cruelty as no evidence was adduced. We also do not think it necessary to interfere in the matter.
5. With reference to the allegation of desertion, it is admitted that the building was constructed near the school of the petitioner and RW1 in her evidence categorically stated that the building was constructed with the fund given by her brothers. After the housewarming ceremony, petitioner left the place and was residing with his sister. The fact that they had a house is not disputed. But the evidence indicates that it is the petitioner who had deserted his wife. In the evidence, she had stated that she and her children were ready and willing to accommodate the petitioner in their house. During cross examination, when a Mat.Appeal.No.529 OF 2014 5 question was asked to the petitioner whether after being separated for about 15 years, it may possible to live together. Her answer was, it may not be possible.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the marriage has been irretrievably broken and there is no chance for a reunion. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the parties are separated by dissolution of marriage. Irretrievable break down of marriage by itself is not a ground for divorce. They are living separately since the petitioner had abandoned and deserted the respondent and her children. The respondent had filed a case for maintenance, since they were not being taken care of. Therefore, it is not a case in which, the respondent was in any way responsible for the break down of marriage. It is always open for the petitioner to go and reside with the respondent, as she has not prevented him from residing with them. Mat.Appeal.No.529 OF 2014 6 Under such circumstances, the Family Court was justified in rejecting the claim for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. We do not find any ground to interfere with the said judgment. Hence, Mat.Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
Sn
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE