RADHAKRISHANA PANICKER Vs. USHAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed O.P.(HMA) No.38 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Alappuzha against the appellant for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 4.12.1980. A daughter was born in that wedlock on 18.3.1982. The wife alleged that the appellant was an irresponsible husband and he did not care to discharge his obligations as a husband and as the father of the child. The appellant allegedly misappropriated the gold ornaments belonging to the wife. The respondent and her daughter were leading a miserable life in the appellant's house. The appellant was highly indebted as a result of his lifestyle and when his creditors made demands, the husband demanded money from his wife, her parents and brothers. They were not amenable to oblige him. It was alleged that the appellant/husband started harassing the respondent mentally and physically. She was constrained to leave the matrimonial home on 6.8.2001 along with her daughter. All attempts made to settle the disputes failed. The appellant did not care to visit the respondent or his daughter. No maintenance was paid to them.

(2.) IN paragraph 3 of the Original Petition, the respondent/wife stated thus :

(3.) IN the objections filed by the appellant/husband, it was contended, interalia, thus : The date of birth of the daughter of the parties is wrongly shown in the Original Petition. The allegations in the Original Petition are false. The appellant/husband was looking after his wife and daughter to the best of his ability. He did not misappropriate the ornaments. No demand for money was made. The Original Petition was filed at the instance of the brothers of the respondent/wife to avoid the appellant/husband, so that they could sell the property belonging to the wife. As regards the averments in paragraph 3 of the Original Petition, the appellant/husband stated that he only objected to his daughter's marriage without his consent or knowledge. He was shocked and agonised by the attempt of his wife's family members to exclude him from the family function. The case of harassment and cruelty were also denied. The respondent/wife left the matrimonial home on