XXXXXXX Vs. XXXXXXX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Mat. Appeal is against the judgment and decree dtd. 25/09/2021 in O.P.No.1060 of 2011 of the Family Court, Ettumanoor. The appellant is the respondent and the respondent herein, the petitioner in the proceedings before the Family Court, Ettumanoor. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the proceedings before the court below.

(2.) The petitioner/wife moved O.P.(Div.)No.334 of 2009 under Sec. 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 (the Act), before the Family Court, Thodupuzha, seeking dissolution of her marriage to the respondent solemnized on 17/01/2009, on the ground of cruelty. The respondent/ husband challenged the jurisdiction of the court. The point was found against him. Hence the respondent challenged the same before this Court in Mat. Appeal No.303 of 2011. As per judgment dtd. 05/06/2011, this Court directed the Family Court, Thodupuzha, to return the original petition for presentation before the appropriate Family Court. Pursuant to the same, the original petition was presented before the Family Court, Ettumanoor, and it was re-numbered as O.P.No.1060 of 2011. Thereafter, the petition was amended to bring in an additional ground for dissolution of marriage, that is, non-consummation of marriage under Sec. 10(vii) of the Act.

(3.) On completion of pleadings, the parties went to trial. PW1 was examined on behalf of the petitioner/wife and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. The respondent/husband examined himself as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked on his side. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, the court below by judgment dtd. 07/12/2013 dismissed the petition. The petitioner/wife preferred an appeal before this Court as Mat.Appeal No.238 of 2014. This Court by judgment dtd. 29/12/2019 allowed the appeal and the judgment dtd. 07/12/2013 of the Family Court, Ettumanoor, was set aside. The matter was remanded and the petitioner/wife was given an opportunity to adduce further evidence to substantiate her case on both the grounds. The respondent was also given the liberty to adduce further evidence, if so desired by him.