RAJESH CHANDRASEKHAR Vs. PRATHIBHA RIJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband is the appellant. The wife is the respondent. The original petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty filed by the husband as OP No.484/2012 at the Family Court, Irinjalakuda was dismissed as per the judgment dated 24/2/2018. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 19/4/2008 as per religious rites and ceremonies. In the wedlock, a child was born on 8/5/2011. At the time of marriage, the appellant was working as Assistant Manger in ICICI Securities at Ahmadabad. After the marriage, the respondent went to Ahmadabad and joined the appellant. They were residing at an apartment at Ahmadabad. According to the appellant, during the initial days, the respondent was exhibiting love and affection towards him and by passage of time, she started to argue, pick up quarrel and fight for silly incidents. It was alleged that the respondent was bad tempered, constantly using filthy language and arguing with him without any reason. She showed complete disinterest in all household functions and refused to attend her duties as a wife. He alleged that there were regular instances of outrage and resentment causing serious mental agony and pain to him. According to him, she was dancing in tune with the directions of her mother. He added that there were instances of inflicting assault and physical injury by the respondent on him. He specifically alleged that on 13/4/2009, in the evening, while he and respondent were returning in their car to the flat after shopping, she started fighting ferociously, slapped and scribbled on his face with nails and when he stopped the car, she opened the door and ran away. After the said incident, on the next day, she left the flat and went to her parents' place. She was staying with her parents till August, 2009 and on 2/9/2009, after the intervention of the relatives, she came back to his flat and they again started to reside together. Thereafter, the appellant was transferred to Bombay and the respondent accompanied him. In the month of September 2010, the respondent became pregnant and on the seventh month of her pregnancy she went to her parental home. It was alleged that thereafter even though the appellant made several attempts to call over phone to enquire about her well- being and health conditions, the respondent did not positively respond instead, again she started to pick up quarrel with him. It was further alleged that her parents even did not allow him to talk with her over phone. According to the appellant, the respondent and her parents abused and humiliated him and also threatened him by saying that he would not be allowed to see the face of the child. Even though the baby was delivered, he was not informed in time or he was not even informed details regarding the delivery of the child. It was further alleged that when the appellant went to see the newborn child, the respondent and her family members fully disregarded him and engaged in scolding and abusing. The appellant was not allowed to take the child even. According to him, he was under tremendous pain and pressure since he was unable to see the child. The child was fully alienated from him. The appellant has also highlighted another incident in which the police was called to the apartment at Bombay and created a scene and he was ridiculed in front of the police and local public who gathered there. The appellant specifically stated that the respondent has never been a loving, faithful and caring wife, on the contrary, she made his life miserable. It was in these circumstances, the appellant preferred the original petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

(3.) The respondent entered appearance before the court below and filed detailed counter statement. She specifically denied various instances of cruelty allegedly exercised by her on the appellant and pleaded in the original petition. According to her, she was very loving and cordial with the appellant and it was the appellant who often quarreled with her and failed to discharge the marital obligation. She sought for the dismissal of the petition.