LAWS(KER)-2020-3-298

KIZHPOYIL KUNIYIL NARAYANAN Vs. SARITHA

Decided On March 02, 2020
Kizhpoyil Kuniyil Narayanan Appellant
V/S
SARITHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the respondent in O.P.No.51 of 2013 of the Family Court, Vatakara. The original petition had been filed by the respondent seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The parties got married on 3.2.2002 and a child was born in the wedlock. According to the petitioner, during the first three years of marriage, they were living happily without any problems as such. However, later, the appellant's attitude changed and he started assaulting and harassing her. She further contended that he had been demanding money and she was being forced to demand money from her parents. She was not in a position to ask for any money from her parents, as she married the appellant after a love affair and as they do not belong to same caste, her parents were not in favour of the marriage as well. When the harassment continued, she had to go away from the matrimonial home along with the child and thereafter, she filed the original petition.

(2.) The appellant filed objection denying the allegations. According to him, he had not acted in a cruel manner against the petitioner and the allegations, according to him, was totally false. According to him, he is a driver by profession and he was always taking care of his family and there was no reason for the respondent/wife to move away from the matrimonial home. It is only at the instance of her parents that she had gone from the matrimonial home.

(3.) The above case was tried along with another original petition filed as O.P.No.80 of 2013 by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. Common evidence was taken in the case. The petitioner/wife was examined as PW1 and the respondent as RW1. Exhibits A1 and B1 to B9 series of documents were relied upon by the parties. The Family Court, after considering the evidence of PW1, came to a finding that the evidence of PW1 has not been controverted in any manner and therefore on a finding that the respondent acted in a cruel manner against the petitioner/wife, divorce was granted.