XXX Vs. XXX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prologue: In the tradition-bound society of ours, the marital union is not a mere union of individuals but would extend to the union of two families. There is an expectation that spouses in such marital union would follow the traditions, aspirations and values cherished by the families. Marriage and family are two interlinked structures within the society. Each society in different parts of the world has its own ethos about marriage and family. However, all such societies share a common notion that the individuals' union are for companionship, mutual respect and happiness. In an arranged marriage that we follow traditionally in our country, the choice for a woman is limited. They simply follow the guidance of parents or elders. In a rich family, they look upon professional status, wealth, etc., as a hallmark for such union. While digressing on this prologue, a thought comes to our mind is, are we really missing what is required for such marital union? Pompous and hedonist lifestyle culture brought marked changes to our outlook. The same is also reflected in the concept of marriage. If marriage is seen as a symbol to project status, without reflecting the values the individuals or society would cherish to profess, we may miss the basic concept required for marriage. The concept of family as a social unit is also slowly withering away to recognize the concept of bond created by the individuals. The individuals who were reluctant to separate, fearing social fear, and on the ideal of the sacrament of marriage, have no fear now to approach the court for divorce to establish the free act of "will". But the system of justice that is followed in the court cannot recognize such free will of the individual. The case in hand, in fact, depicts a story of the struggle of a woman within the clutches of law to give primacy of choice "not to suffer" in the bondage of legal tie. An insatiable urge for wealth and sex of a husband had driven a woman to distress. In desperation for obtaining a divorce, she has forsaken and abandoned all her monetary claims. Her cry for divorce has been prolonged in the temple of justice for more than a decade (12 years). She still awaits a final bell to answer her prayers and cry. She is unable to digest the delay involved in responding to a request for the separation. Perhaps we are accountable for her tears. We see this is not a solitary instance. On a day-to-day basis, we see many many like her. Her whimper touches our conscience. We shall advert to this enigma while concluding this judgment.

(2.) Facts of the case: These appeals arise from a common judgment allowing a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and dismissal of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant is the husband. The appellant married the respondent in accordance with the custom prevalent in the Hindu-Ezhava community on 11/2/1995. In the wedlock, two children were born. The appellant is a qualified medical doctor at the time of marriage. The respondent-wife's father is a realtor. The appellant's father was a well-known doctor in Calicut. The marriage was an arranged marriage. The respondent is said to have been given 501 gold sovereigns at the time of marriage besides car and flat. The appellant never practised as a medical doctor. He engaged in the real estate business and construction. The real estate business was not a smooth run for the appellant. He never succeeded in the business. A case of cruelty was put forward by the respondent on constant harassment and demand for money. It is the case of the respondent that the respondent's father gave Rs.77 lakhs to the appellant on different occasions. The respondent also stated that the entire gold ornaments were also misappropriated by the appellant. The respondent attributed the cause of failure in the real estate business was due to the profligate lifestyle of the appellant. The respondent also stated that sexual perversion and physical harassment as a part of the cruelty. It appears that the appellant also doubted the chastity of the respondent. In the petition, the appellant stated that the respondent levelled an extramarital relationship with the caretaker of the flat and the driver. The appellant in the written statement denied all allegations except attribution of extramarital relationship with the caretaker. The evidence, in this case, consists of oral evidence of respondent herein as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7. On the side of the appellant, the appellant and his brother were examined as RW1 and RW2. Exts.B1 to B3 and B7 to B16 were marked on the side of the appellant. Pending a petition for divorce filed by the respondent, the appellant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the cases were tried together. By a common judgment dated 24/10/2014, the petition filed for divorce by the respondent was allowed, and the petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights by the appellant was dismissed.

(3.) We have to refer to the conduct of the appellant in this proceeding. The appeal was originally filed by the appellant through a lawyer. He relinquished vakalath. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the appellant by this Court, and when the matter was taken up on 14/6/2021, we passed the following order: