JAYAKRISHNAN G NAIR Vs. SALINI PRASANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment in O. P. No. 1346/ 2004 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Appellant is the husband and respondent is his wife. The appellant filed the Original Petition under Section 13(l)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 5-9-1995 at Thiruvananthapuram as per Hindu Customary Rites. At the time of marriage, the appellant was a post graduate student in Germany doing final year course in Architecture. After the marriage, the respondent went to Germany in a tourist visa, resided there with the appellant for three months and on expiry of the visa period she returned to India. After his studies, he joined for a job in Singapore, but respondent stayed at Thiruvananthapuram for the reason that she wanted to complete her B. Ed. course at Thiruvananthapuram, later, she went to Singapore and resided with him and in the wedlock a female daughter was born to them. Since the baby was born with bow legs, the respondent insisted the child to be taken back to Thiruvananthapuram for Ayurveda treatment. Though the appellant was against that decision, ultimately, he agreed to go to Thiruvananthapuram. The respondent always showed aversion towards the appellant's parents. While the doctors in Singapore found that the appellant has a damaged kidney, the respondent and her parents showed more hatred towards the appellants. They alleged that they were cheated by hiding a pre-existing illness and ultimately that kidney was removed at Amrutha Hospital, Kochi. Three weeks after the removal of kidney, the appellant was forced to return back to Singapore due to contingencies developed regarding employment. Though the appellant wanted the company of his wife and child, the respondent refused to join with him back to Singapore and always abused him over telephone. Later in one occasion she joined with the petitioner in Singapore for renewing her permanent residency status and re-entry permit, stayed there for 10 days, while so she behaved as a total stranger. By the acts done and words spoken, the respondent had been dealing with the appellant with absolute cruelty. The respondent had deliberately avoided the appellant's child from seeing her father and even talking to him over phone. The respondent has deserted the appellant and treated him with mental cruelty and harassment. Hence, the appellant filed the above O. P. for getting decree of divorce.

(2.) The respondent denied the allegation by filing written objection and contended that even on the date of marriage, the appellant and his parents abused her by stating that she is not beautiful and that the gold brought by her was not sufficient. She contended that the appellant returned to Germany where he was pursuing his studies after marriage without taking her as agreed before the marriage. According to her, she had gone to Germany about 3 months after obtaining a visiting visa with the efforts of her father. The appellant did not do anything to extend the period of visa and so she had to return back. Thereafter, the appellant got employment in Singapore and as directed by him, the respondent joined with him and while staying there she became pregnant, the appellant sent back the respondent to Thiruvananathapuram saying that the delivery expenses will be very high in Singapore. The main allegation against the appellant is that he has illicit relationship with one lady in Singapore. She is ready and willing to reside with the appellant along with her child.

(3.) The learned trial Judge framed three vital issues for determination. The first issue was whether the appellant was treated with cruelty by the respondent, if so, whether he is entitled for any relief. Secondly, whether the appellant was deserted by the respondent. The third issue was that if it is proved, whether the appellant is entitled for dissolution of marriage as claimed. During the trial, the appellant was examined as PW-1 and his documentary evidence were marked as Exts. Al to A15. The respondent was examined as CPW1 and no documentary evidence has been marked on her side. The learned trial Judge recorded the finding that none of the grounds mentioned in the issues are proved and he is not in a position to pass a decree for dissolution of the marriage and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner in the lower Court (the appellant) preferred this appeal.