ELIZABETH ALIAS JOLLY GEORGE Vs. T G ANDREWS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS there reasonable cause to justify the withdrawal of the wife from the matrimonial society of the husband? IS he entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights? These are the simple questions to be decided in this appeal. But this appeal reveals the burdensome nature of adjudication of matrimonial causes. For the adjudicators also it is demanding, draining disappointing and frustrating too. The Court feels that the endeavour to distinguish truth from perceptions of the parties in matrimonial causes is indeed challenging and difficult and more importantly perhaps, unnecessary and purposeless too. The question still remains: Has not our society attained sufficient maturity to leave the matrimonial options safely in the hands of the individuals concerned? Should the system tax itself with the responsibility of attempting to make value judgments of right and wrong in matrimonial causes which are purely interpersonal? Should spouses be compelled to spend long years in the corridors of matrimonial Courts to liberate themselves from the 'holy' knot which is giving them nothing but trauma and frustration? IS it not time yet to have a healthy piece of modem matrimonial legislation that permits unwilling spouses to walk out with dignity as friends from a matrimony that he or she considers unworkable? Will not stipulations of mandatory counselling and mandatory period of waiting and of legal mechanism to protect the financial interests of the economically fragile partner and children born in such matrimony better serve the interests of the society and justice? These disturbing thoughts come to our mind again when we commence dictation at the end of a long exercise where we find ourselves unable to persuade the couple to unite harmoniously or to part with dignity as friends.

(2.) TO the fundamental and undisputed facts first of all. The young couple, contestants in this appeal, are both qualified teachers. There is, of course, a dispute as to whether the wife is presently employed or not. Their marriage took place on 25/5/98. After marriage initially they had attempted to reside together in the parental home of the husband; but they had given it up and they had resided at two places - Ballussery and Ulliyeri, in houses taken on rent. The wife became pregnant. There was acrimony in the marriage on account of various reasons. The wife was not taken to her house for delivery during the seventh month. The spouses continued to reside in the rented house. The mother of the wife had gone to that house and had resided with the couple for about one month. Separate residence started from 30/9/99 when the wife was taken to her house for delivery. From 30/9/99 the spouses are residing separately. A female child was born on 19/10/99.

(3.) ACCORDING to the wife, the husband was guilty of mental and physical cruelty after the marriage. While they were residing at his parental house and later at the houses taken on rent by them and subsequently when she started residing in her parental home after she returned for delivery and even during the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court, the husband was guilty of physical and mental cruelty. He was interested in money only. Her parents had given her ornaments and cash. An item of property was agreed to be given. The husband was more interested in the property and he used to make vexatious demands for execution of a document by the father of the wife in his favour. The wife was fed up and she did not, in these circumstances, want to return to the husband. Contumacious cruelty was deterring her from resuming cohabitation. She prayed that the petition may be dismissed.