Kerala High Court
Abdul Basith vs Ruksana on 11 July, 2013
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/18TH POUSHA, 1935
Mat.Appeal.No. 631 of 2013 (D)
------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 132/2012 of FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA
DATED 11/7/2013
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:-:
-------------------------------------------
ABDUL BASITH, AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.KUTTIALI, KANIYAMKANDIYIL, KOLATHOOR ROAD
VILAYAPALLI AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
SMT.R.LEELA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:-:
---------------------------------------------
RUKSANA,, AGED 26 YEARS
D/O.ABDURAHIMAN, PADIKKALAKANDIYIL, PURAMERI AMSOM
DESOM, PURAMERI POST, MUTHUVADATHUR
VATAKARA TALUK.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN FOR CAVEATOR
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-01-
2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
============================
Mat. Appeal No. 631 OF 2013
====================
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2014
J U D G M E N T
Antony Dominic, J.
Respondent in OP No.132/12 on the file of the Family Court, Vatakara is the appellant herein. The said OP was filed by the respondent herein for dissolution of her marriage with the appellant under Section 2(viii)(a) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act.
2. Before the Family Court, the respondent was examined as PW1 and the witness on behalf of the appellant was examined as RW1. Exts.A1 to A3 were also marked. The Family Court by the impugned judgment allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage between the appellant and the respondent on the ground of cruel treatment by the appellant. It is this judgment, which is challenged before us.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also considered the submissions made by him to the effect that the allegation of cruelty was not proved before the Family Court. However, having considered the finding of the Family Court under Mat.Appeal No.631/13 : 2 :
point Nos.1 and 2, we are unable to accept the said argument of the learned counsel. Reading of the judgment would show that in her evidence as PW1, respondent herein had narrated various instances of physical and mental cruelty, which entitled her for a decree of dissolution of marriage.
4. On the other hand, the appellant, against whom serious allegations were made, did not even mount the box or tendered evidence and instead was contended by examining RW1, his sister, who did not have any direct knowledge of what transpired in the matrimonial home. The Court has also found that without any basis, the appellant had alleged unchastity on the respondent, which also amounted to mental cruelty. In such circumstances, the finding of the Family Court does not suffer from any illegality justifying interference.
Appeal is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Rp