SRI VICTOR SEBASTIAN Vs. THORULATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI. Victor Sebastian is before us aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 11. 8. 2005 passed in MC No. 24/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Udupi in this appeal.

(2.) THE appellant-husband married respondent on 8. 5. 1996 at U. B. M. Jublee Church, Udupi as per the customary rights of Protestant Christians. Parties are related to each other. The respondent is a daughter of appellant's mother's younger sister. Parties were knowing each other from their childhood and at the time of marriage, the appellant was working at Dubai. After marriage, at the respondent's instance, the newly married couple had rented a house and they were staying together at Udupi. After four months of the marriage, the respondent had vacated the rented house and gone to her parents house, taking away an advance deposit amount paid by the appellant to the landlord in the. matter. She did not join her husband. The respondent in the light of the amendment to the Indian Divorce Act 2001 filed a petition Under Section 10 (1) (x) of the Divorce Act 1869 before the learned Judge alleging cruelty in the matter. Objections were filed. Witnesses were examined. The learned Judge, after hearing has chosen to allow the application filed by the respondent-wife in terms of the impugned order. This order is challenged before us.

(3.) SRI. Vishwajith Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argues that in terms of the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that Section 10 (x) is attracted to the facts of this case. According to him/ there is no cruelty as such warranting divorce in terms of the findings of the learned Judge. He further argues that the Senior Civil Judge of Udupi Court has no jurisdiction in terms of the definition under the 1869 Act. He wants our interference.