PADMAKUMARI Vs. CHANDRASEKHARAN KARTHAVU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal unfolds a tragedy in the married life of the parties to the case. More than that, there is an innocent victim, a child less than an year old when the lis commenced and who has now passed 11. The pernicious dowry system raises its ugly head. How small differences could have been easily patched up, if only a congenial legal mechanism directed for such a noble goal had existed, is also demonstrated by the facts of the case.

(2.) Padmakumari, near Always, was married to Chandrasekharan Karthavu, near Perumbavoor on 7-6-1972. The husband was a forest guard and the wife had completed her school education. Sindhu was the daughter born to them. The wife met with an accident ; had a fall and fracture on her right knee. It appears to have caused a lingering disability, partial though, for the wife. (The wife, perhaps unnecessarily, apprehends that the husband was unhappy at the prospects of living with such a disabled wife). That was, however, only a preclude to a greater tragedy. A demand for the payment of the balance dowry promised, appears to have been made from the husband's side. That was not readily responded to by the wife's parents. The wife was helpless in such a situation. The husband's father, a crafty man who takes pride in having learnt all tricks in life, racked his brain, hatched a plot and accomplished a feat. At a time when the wife was in her father's house she was taken to the Sub Registrar Office at Ankamaly under the pretext that her presence was necessary for facilitating the acquisition of a property in her name. She obeyed the husband, and without realising the contents of the document, affixed her signature there to, when it was registered. The couple then returned to the husband's house. It was then the turn of the wife's father to resort to unnecessary gimmicks. He initiated criminal proceedings, obtained a search warrant in respect of his own daughter, got her produced before the Court, which ultimately ordered that she could accompany her father. It was soon realised that what was registered was not a document of acquisition of property but one dissolving the matrimonial connection between the husband and the wife. The suit was then filed for a declaration that the document is vitiated. Copious details were given in the plaint about the circumstances under which an evil design had been executed by dubious steps, and practising foul means and fraudulent devices. The plaint allegations were repudiated by the husband.

(3.) The plaintiff gave evidence on her behalf and examined three other witnesses. PW-2 is a relative and neighbour who knew intimately about the events preceding and succeeding the marriage, through whom was produced a letter dated 10-11-1973 purporting to emanate from the defendant's father and which gives a very clear indication about the role he played in the tragic part of the drama. PW-3 was not only a taxi driver who took them to the Sub Registrar Office but also an attesting witness to Ext. Al. The Sub-Registrar who registered the document was examined as PW-4. Exts A-2 and A-3 evidence the criminal proceedings relating to the "search" made at the instance of the plaintiff's father and the order of the Magistrate by which the plaintiff was permitted to go with her father. Ext.\4 is a letter written on 7-9-1973 by the plaintiff to her father and Ext. A-5 is a letter dated 9-11-1973 addressed by the husband to the wife. The unsigned letter received by PW-2 (who is related to the plaintiff) which does not contain the signature of the defendant's father, is Ext. A-6. Ext. 7 is another letter sent by the husband to the wife.