PRAKASH Vs. BINDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mat. Appeal No. 324/13 and Mat. Appeal No. 385/2013 are filed by the petitioner and respondent respectively in O.P. No. 256/11 on the file of the Family Court, Thalasserry. For convenience, the appellant in Mat. Appeal No. 324/13 is referred to as the husband and the appellant in Mat. Appeal No. 385/13 is referred to as the wife. O.P. No. 256711 was filed by the husband seeking a decree of divorce urging grounds under S. 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. From the evidence, it is seen that the husband and wife are the children of brothers and were in love for a period of 10 years. Thereafter, much to the dislike of the members of their family, their marriage was solemnized on 29.1.2001 at Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayoor. It is also stated that after considerable treatment, the wife gave birth to twins, two female children, who are aged about 6 years now. The relationship between the couple became strained during 2008 February, and since then, the wife and the kids are residing in her paternal house.

(2.) The O.P. was filed alleging that the wife was living in adultery with the second respondent and was guilty of cruelty towards the husband. Before the Family Court, on behalf of the husband, himself and another witness were examined as PWs 1 and 2 and the wife and her father were examined as RWs 1 and 2. Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the husband and Exts. X1 and X1(a) are the court exhibits. By its judgment dated 28th of February, 2013, the Family Court declined to accept the case of adultery urged by the husband but however held that the evidence proved that the attitude of the wife towards the husband was cruel in nature. Thereafter, instead of granting a decree of divorce, Family Court ordered judicial separation. It is challenging this judgment of the Family Court that the husband filed M.A. No. 324/13 and the wife has filed M.A. No. 385/13.

(3.) Before the Family Court, the second respondent, the alleged adulterer remained ex-parte and though notice issued in M.A. No. 324/13 was served on him, the second respondent did not choose to enter appearance before this Court also.