MINI MATHEW Vs. THOMAS MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the wife under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (substituted by Act 51 of 2001) seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

(2.) Put briefly the facts pleaded by the wife are as under:- The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 17.8.1992 at St.Mary's Church, Vettimukal, Kerala according to Christian religious rites. Soon after the marriage, parties stayed together for about a week in Kerala and due to want of extended leave of the respondent, the parties returned to Delhi and stayed for a short while at the residence of the respondent's brother at E-440, Greater Kailash, Part II, New Delhi. Petitioner alleges that within 20 days of her marriage, she came to know that the respondent was making enquiries at Delhi about her character and morals from some of her friends and her friends in turn informed her. On questioning as to suspicious nature of the respondent the petitioner was beaten up mercilessly. However, this did not last longer since the respondent left for Muscat in September, 1992. The petitioner tried to forget these incidents and made an earnest attempt to bring about good relationship with her husband and wrote letters to him in Muscat with the firm belief that their relationship will be in order sooner than later.

(3.) On or about 28th July, 1993, the respondent returned to Delhi for his annual holidays. But to the petitioner's surprise, she found that, despite, her letter to him, he was not only not responsive but also maintained his suspicious attitude to her, gave expression to his suspicions whenever they met their friends. During these holidays the parties lived together in respondent's brother house at E-440, Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi. This period was the last occasion that the parties lived and co-habited together. The petitioner was staying in Delhi since 1986 and has good friendship with the families and as a member of the Church had also taken part in youth activities and in social welfare etc. The respondent resented such social contacts and developed unreasonable suspicion which resulted in constant quarrels and even her her own colleagues in the social activities both men and women started avoiding her and did not allow her to participate in these activities.