MILKA JOSE Vs. C.O. FRANCIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from a common judgment dated 8/8/2012 in OP.Nos.725/2008 and 1059/2008 of the Family Court, Thrissur. Mat.Appeal No.87/2013 has been filed by the respondent/wife in OP No. 1059/2008 and Mat.Appeal No. 200/2013 has been filed by the petitioner/wife in OP.No.725/2008. O.P.No.725/2008 has been filed by the wife seeking divorce under Section 10 of the Divorce Act. OP No.1059/2008 has been filed by the husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

(2.) The short facts of the case as disclosed in OP No.725/2008 would indicate that the couple got married on 7/2/1999 as per Christian religious rites and ceremonies. Two children were born in the wedlock. Matrimonial issues had developed between the parties. Petitioner contended that the respondent was a habitual drunkard and she was threatened that he would marry another woman. Misappropriation of her gold ornaments and her money had also been alleged. Though there was a conciliation among them and they started living in a rented house at Puthussery, the assault continued demanding more money and ornaments and finally she had to leave the matrimonial home. She alleged that on a particular date, she was pushed towards the wall and on account of which she sustained injury on her eardrum. When the threats continued, she filed a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of police and on the instruction of mediators, both attended a retreat at Kuzhikkatussery in the year 2005. Thereafter, again they resided together. But his alcoholic tendency continued and there was further demand for more money. She was harassed and she was asked not to go for any job and ultimately her parents had to take her away from the matrimonial home.

(3.) Respondent denied the allegations and according to him, all the allegations were absolutely false. The above case was tried along with another case filed by the wife for custody of the minor children. Common evidence was taken. PW1 to PW4 were examined on the side of the wife and RW1 to RW4 on the side of the husband. Exts.A1 to A10 and B1 to B6 were the documents relied upon. The Family Court after considering the respective contentions of the parties held that when the petitioner had made open accusation against her husband which were baseless, and picked up quarrels with him and ultimately left the matrimonial home without any reason, which amounts to cruelty against the husband, and while accepting the evidence of RW1, the Court below held that there was absolutely no evidence to prove that husband had committed any cruelty towards his wife. In such circumstances, the Family Court denied divorce and allowed the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that there was no valid reason for the wife to remain away from the matrimonial home.