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.

(2.) 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 PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 series were marked. The Family Court, 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.

(3.) CRUELTY is a ground for matrimonial reliefs under all matrimonial laws. But, the term "cruelty" is nowhere defined nor is capable of any definition. The concept of cruelty has varied from time to time and from place to place and from individual to individual in its application to social status of persons involved and the economic conditions and other matters. The cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot, reasonably be expected to reside together. It has to be determined in the facts and circumstances of the case. A particular behaviour of the parties may amount to cruelty in one set of circumstances and may not be so, in another set of circumstances. The facts like environment, status in society, education, local customs, physical and mental conditions of the parties and also the subsequent events can be taken note of.