KIZHAKKE PURAYIL KUNHIRAMAN Vs. O.S. DEEPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.6.2005 in O.P. No. 481/2003 of the Family Court, Kannur, by which the learned Judge dismissed the above O.P. filed by the appellant/petitioner for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) THE case of the appellant/petitioner is that the marriage between the respondent and himself was solemnized on 19 -10 -1997 as per the customs prevailing in their community and the respondent/wife, without any valid reason, deserted him since 28.12.1998. It is the further case of the appellant/petitioner that though a decree was passed against the respondent/wife and in favour of the petitioner, restituting conjugal rights, the wife failed to come and reside along with him and under the above circumstances, he approached the court below with the prayer for a decree dissolving his marital relationship with the respondent. By filing a counter statement, the respondent/wife, while admitting the fact that she is legally wedded wife of the appellant/petitioner, denied all other contentions. According to her, due to the cruelty towards her from her husband, she was forced to shift her residence to her parental home. She contended that she has filed a compliant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba against the cruelty maintained by the appellant/petitioner towards her. It is also her case that O.P. No. 21/2000 was filed by the appellant/petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. But, she did not contest that O.P. under the impression that the petitioner -husband will change his conduct and approach towards her. It is the further contention of the respondent -wife that after the decree in O.P. No. 21/2000, the appellant -husband has not taken any steps to take her back. According to her, though on 26.5.2002, she along with her parents had gone to the residence of the petitioner, the petitioner -husband refused to accept her. According to the respondent -wife, she is always ready and willing to go and join with the petitioner -husband and to reside along with him. So, according to the respondent -wife, there is no merit in the Original Petition filed by the petitioner -husband.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the trial was proceeded during which the petitioner was examined as AW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. From the side of the respondent, RW1 and RW2 were examined.