SUJEETHA THOMSON Vs. M P DEVASSY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/wife filed this petition for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

(2.) THE allegations in the petition briefly are as follows : THE marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 14. 11. 1999 at St. George, Church, Edappally in accordance with the religious rites of Christian community. After the marriage the petitioner and the respondent lived together in the parental house of the petitioner till 7. 10. 2000. THE parents of the petitioner came to know about the marriage proposal of the respondent through a newspaper advertisement, wherein he had expressed his willingness to stay in the wife's house and accordingly the above proposal was considered. THE petitioner and her parents were made to believe that the respondent had passed Pre-degree and ITI and was employed at FC OEN ltd. and was having monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/ -. At the time of marriage the petitioner was a Post-graduate in Hindi Language. At the time of marriage 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the petitioner by her parents. Even from the very inception of the marriage, the respondent was not showing any sort of love or affection towards the petitioner and he used to pick up quarrel with the petitioner every day for some reason or other and he was ill-treating her both physically and mentally. On several occasions he assaulted her. In august 2000 he slapped on her cheeks. As the respondent was not looking after her affairs, she had to depend on her mother for her day to day expenses. In fact, their expenses were met by the mother of the petitioner, who was employed in a Bank. THE petitioner requested, the respondent to meet a part of the household expenses, but he refused and hence she decided to have a job of her own and she joined for B. Ed. Course in SAM Training College , poothotta.

(3.) THE petitioner was examined as PW. 1 and two witnesses as PWs. 2 and 3 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the petitioner. THE respondent was examined as RW. 1 and Ext. B1 was marked. THE learned counsel on both sides were heard.