ARUN.R.NAIK Vs. MRS.K.SHWETHA PAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the petitioner in O.P No.112 of 2011 of Family Court, Kozhikode. The Original Petition had been filed by the petitioner/husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The parties belong to Gowda Saraswatha Brahmin community and they got married on 25.02.2003 as per the religious rites and ceremonies of the said community. A female child was born in the wedlock on 30.04.2004. The parties got separated on 25.09.2008. According to the appellant/petitioner, respondent went away from his house along with the minor child.

(2.) Petitioner contended that the behaviour of the respondent was not congenial to the family atmosphere on account of which he was suffering severe mental agony. Though he tried to adjust his level best, the respondent was not willing to make any adjustments. According to the petitioner, her attitude was that of a sadist and she had spoiled the peaceful atmosphere in the house. He did not derive any sexual pleasure or enjoyment from the respondent. The parents of the petitioner were also residing with them but his wife was not willing to adjust with them and used to pick up quarrels usually. On one fine occasion, without any provocation he attacked the petitioner and slapped on his face. She used to throw utensils, coconut shells etc at the petitioner. Once he thought that she would even stab him with a knife. She even threatened that she would commit suicide and kill the child. The marital life had become miserable and it was informed to the parents of the respondent. They arrived from Hyderabad and advised the respondent to co-operate with the petitioner and his family members. But there was no change in her attitude. Several mediations took place. Even then, her attitude did not change. Finally on 25.09.2008, she left the matrimonial house.

(3.) Respondent denied the allegations. According to her, it was the petitioner, who misbehaved and she was tolerating the same while they were living together. She contended that the petitioner does not take any independent decision and every thing was controlled by his parents. She further contended that he is a split personality. When his parents were at home, he behaved as a different person and when they were not at home, he was very cordial. She could not therefore mingle with friends or relatives of the family. She denied the other allegations made by the petitioner.