K.S.SAJI Vs. K.M.BIJIMOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT herein approached the Family Court, Thodupuzha by filing a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to for short "the Act" only) for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent whose marriage was solemnized on 10.11.2002 at Mangalya Auditorium, Ettumanoor in Kottayam District in accordance with the religious rites and ceremonies of Viswakarma community of Hindu religion. The learned Judge of the Family Court as per the impugned judgment found that the ground - cruelty - alleged by the appellant/petitioner is not proved with sufficient evidence and accordingly, rejected the prayer and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.

(2.) WE heard Shri Jaison Joseph, learned counsel for the appellant. Though notice is served on the respondent, adopting the same approach in the trial court, the respondent did not care to appear before this Court either in person or by engaging a counsel of her choice and to defend the appeal. From paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment, it can be seen that the trial court has issued notice on the respondent wife but, she did not appear in that court even after the acceptance of summons. Therefore, she was called absent and set ex parte.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the marriage between the appellant/petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 10.11.2002. It is also the admitted case of the appellant that in the year 2006 he had shifted his residence from Teekoi in Meenachil Taluk to a house at Ellupuram in Muttam Village in Idukki District along with his parents but, the respondent wife did not join with him even though he had caused to send a lawyer notice on 07.04.2006 demanding the respondent -wife to join and live with him. The specific allegation raised by the appellant/petitioner against the respondent -wife is that she used to call abusive words against him and she mixed poison with the meals for the appellant and the appellant felt bad odour of the poison and thus he did not take the meals. After all these, the respondent left the company of the appellant/petitioner and thereafter she was residing along with her parents from September, 2006 onwards. So, according to the appellant/petitioner, the above conduct and approach of the respondent -wife would amount to cruelty, on the basis of which the court below ought to have allowed the petition and granted an order as prayed for.