MAJU SUSAN BABU Vs. SUNIL MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, appellant/wife assails the judgment and decree of Family Court, Kottayam which declined the relief of divorce sought by her under Sec. 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869.

(2.) Appellant's case is that her marriage with the respondent was solemnised on 17/1/2013 in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of Christians. A girl child was born to them in the said wedlock. During the period of marriage, she was working as a staff nurse in 'Medical Centre, Kottayam'. Respondent, who was then working abroad, demanded her to resign her job and he promised to arrange a job for her in Salala. Believing his words, the appellant resigned her job at Kottayam. After the marriage, respondent went abroad. Soon thereafter, appellant also went abroad and joined the respondent. Respondent was suspicious from the very beginning of their married life and he used to suspect her whenever she happened to speak or interact with any male person and monitored her movements. When she expressed her wish to go for employment, respondent discouraged her. He used to go out after locking her in the room. Appellant was not permitted to make any phone calls to anyone in his absence. She was not even permitted to watch TV programmes except devotional programmes. On two occasions, respondent manhandled the appellant. Respondent had huge financial liability and he had no money even to meet their household affairs. When she was admitted for delivery in Kottayam Medical Centre, respondent came there and created a ruckus in the hospital. After delivery, when she returned to her house with the child, he came there and manhandled her parents and abused them. Respondent subjected the appellant to physical and mental cruelty and therefore she sought divorce on the ground of cruelty.

(3.) Respondent resisted the petition by filing counter and denied the allegations of cruelty alleged against him. Respondent neither demanded the appellant to resign her job nor he make any promise to arrange a job for her in Salala. The allegation that respondent was suspicious and he used to lock her in the room etc. are false. Likewise, the allegation that she was not allowed to watch TV programmes and entertainment programmes and never allowed to talk with friends and relatives is also false. When the appellant was admitted to the hospital for delivery, respondent took leave and came to the native place, but her parents behaved in a cruel manner and they did not permit him to stay in the hospital. Respondent never treated the appellant with cruelty as alleged, and he sought for dismissal of the Original Petition.