CHINNAN Vs. PREMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mat. Appeal 581 of 2010 is directed against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in O.P. 211 of 2009 by which Family Court dismissed the original petition filed by the petitioner, husband for divorce of his marriage with the first respondent mainly on the ground of insanity and also on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. R.P.F.C. No. 306 of 2010 is filed by the appellant in Mat. Appeal 581 of 2010 challenging the order of the Family Court in M.C. No. 226 of 2009 filed by respondents, viz. wife and 6 = year old minor child of the appellant and the first respondent. The Family Court under that order directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,250/- and Rs. 750/- per mensum respectively as maintenance for first respondent, wife and 2nd respondent, minor child with effect from the date of the original petition. In fact, the learned Family Court tried the two original petitions filed by the appellant together with O.P. No. 635 of 2009 filed by the first respondent seeking a direction to the husband to return 37 sovereigns of gold or its current market value. The learned Family Court passed a common order in the three cases and under that common order O.P. 635 of 2009 was dismissed taking the view that the evidence in the case does not show that the first respondent, wife has entrusted so much gold ornaments with the appellant at the time of the marriage.

(2.) In Mat. Appeal 581 of 2010 various grounds are raised challenging the finding of the learned Family Court that the appellant was not able to establish by evidence that the first respondent had lunacy or any other mental problem as contemplated by S. 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is urged in R.P.F.C. 306 of 2010 that the Family Court was not at all justified in directing the appellant to pay maintenance to the respondents. It is also urged that at any rate the amounts presently ordered to be paid as maintenance is excessive.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant who addressed extensive submissions before us on the basis of the grounds raised in the memoranda of appeal and revision. According to him both the appeal and the revision are meritorious as the finding by the learned Family Court regarding the existence of the grounds invoked for divorce is contrary to the evidence on record and also that there was no need for directing the appellant, husband to pay maintenance to respondents. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant very anxiously. We have read through the impugned common order to the extent it relates to O.P. No. 211 of 2009 and M.C. No. 226 of 2009. The lower court records are available before us and we have made a reappraisal of the entire evidence.