MURALEEDHARAN Vs. SUNITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this appeal is the order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram dismissing the appellant's petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(1a)(1b) - cruelty and desertion - of the Hindu Marriage Act. The allegations of the appellant pleaded by him in the context of the above two grounds were stoutly denied by the respondent. The evidence consisted of only oath against oath, i.e. PW1 the appellant himself and RW1 the respondent. The learned Family Court on evaluating the evidence would notice that the oral evidence adduced by RW1 was much more inspiring than the oral evidence adduced by PW1, the appellant. It was found that PW1, the appellant was completely shaken in cross -examination. The learned Family Court has in the impugned order highlighted that PW1 had confessed in the cross -examination that some of the material allegations which the appellant had raised in the original petition in the context of the grounds of cruelty and desertion were untrue. According to us the evidence on record was correctly appreciated by the learned Court. Smt. N. Sudha, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that two vital documents were produced by the appellant before the Family Court. Those documents were not marked in evidence. Counsel requested that the impugned order be set aside and the original petition be remitted back to the Family Court so that the appellant can adduce further evidence and also get those two documents marked in evidence. We are not impressed by the above submission of the learned counsel. The two documents produced are (1) copy of a letter sent by the appellant to the respondent a month or so prior to the institution of the original petition requesting the respondent to join him back. Document No. (2) is copy of a complaint submitted by the appellant before the Vanitha Commission seeking an order directing the respondent to join the appellant together. Both these documents in our opinion will cut at the very root of the appellant's case that the respondent treated her cruelly. Even if there was cruelty on the part of the respondent such cruelty was condoned by the appellant.

(2.) AS regards the issue of desertion, the evidence of RW1 before the Court below was that she loves the appellant very much and wants to join him back. The appellant also stated in his evidence that his wife longs to join him back but according to him. We do not find any infirmity either with the appreciation of evidence by the Court below or by the decision taken by it. Smt. N. Sudha submitted that it was to pave the way for a reconciliation of the dispute between the parties that the appellant moved the Family Court for divorce. This submission does not inspire us. If what the appellant wants is resumption of family life, then the appellant could have very well moved for restitution of conjugal rights. As we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, we dismiss the appeal, however, without any order as to costs.