SHINOJ GEORGE JOSEPH Vs. HIMA GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the petitioner(husband) in O.P. (Divorce) No. 480 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The respondent (wife) herein was the respondent in that Original Petition, which was filed by the husband for divorce under Section 10 of the Divorce Act. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 21.8.2006 at Laka St. Thomas Marthoma Church, Edayaranmula, according to the Christian religious rites. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was working with Air India Express and the respondent was a student at Ernakulam. An amount of Rs. 2.05 lakhs was offered as share amount and the respondent was wearing about 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments. But subsequently it was found that those are imitation ornaments. In December, 2006, the petitioner got an employment in Qatar Airways and the respondent was taken to the petitioner's house. But she stayed there only for few days and left to her house. Thereafter, she worked at several places and during this period she was changing her mobile phones very often. She grabbed money from her employees, pledged her ornaments in fake addresses and she even committed theft of the petitioner's mother's gold ornaments. While she was working with NIFE for three months, there were several complaints of irregular dealings of money and whenever the same was enquired by the petitioner, she became violent and threatened the petitioner. She was harassing the petitioner mentally and physically and she was disobedient. She often picked up quarrels with the petitioner and threatened to commit suicide. She used to make telephone calls even during midnight and to avoid checking of the calls, she changed mobile phones frequently. On 10.5.2009 when the petitioner enquired her about the pledging of ornaments, she became violent and slapped the petitioner and then left the house. Even consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud. On these grounds, the petitioner sought dissolution of marriage. In the Family Court, the respondent appeared, but she did not file any counter and she remained ex parte during trial. Before the Family Court, the petitioner was examined as on considering the evidence on record, dismissed the petition, on finding that cruelty was not proved by the petitioner against the respondent. Against that judgment and decree, the petitioner filed this appeal.

(2.) In this appeal also, the respondent did not appear, even though notice was served on her. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent has already deserted the appellant long ago and now, it is learnt that she has settled in U.S.A. and has also contracted a second marriage. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below went wrong in concluding that there was no instance of cruelty committed by the respondent towards the appellant, so as to make a ground for divorce. The court below ought to have understood the gravity of agony faced by the appellant throughout the marital life because of the unbearable behaviour of the respondent.

(3.) In the Original Petition, the petitioner seeks dissolution of marriage under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, but no sub section is specifically mentioned therein. But the specific allegations raised in the petition would show that the petitioner is claiming divorce on the ground cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act. Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act provides that a marriage solemnized before or after the commence of Indian Divorce Act (Amendment) Act, 2001 may, on a petition presented either by the husband or wife, can be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of marriage, the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty so as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.