MANJU PADAYATTI Vs. MIDHUN JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Above Matrimonial Appeals arise from a common judgment of the Family Court, Ernakulam, dated 06.11.2014 in O.P. No. 2205 of 2012, O.P. No. 1369 of 2014 and O.P. No. 2204 of 2012 respectively. O.P. No. 2205 of 2012 is filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage under Sec.27 of the Special Marriage Act r/w Sec.10 of Indian Divorce Act, which was dismissed by the Family Court. O.P. No. 1369 of 2014 was filed by the respondent under Sec.22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which was allowed by the Family Court. O.P. No. 2204 of 2012 was filed by the appellant seeking realization of an amount of Rs. 35,06,524/ - with 12% interest from the date of suit till realization, which was partly allowed by the Family Court by granting a decree to the appellant for an amount of Rs. 40,000/ - with 6% interest p.a. from 17.11.2011 till its realization. The Family Court has disposed of the aforesaid Original Petitions by its common judgment since the subject matter of the cases are intrinsically connected. Therefore, we also propose to dispose of the same by a common judgment. In order to dispose of the appeals, the facts recited in Mat. Appeal No. 81 of 2015 is narrated and the facts in all the appeals are almost similar and common and therefore separate narration of facts are not required. If at all the same is required, it will be stated wherever it is appropriate.

(2.) Appellant and respondent are wife and husband respectively. Their marriage was solemnized in accordance with provisions of the Special Marriage Act on 02.07.2011. Thereafter on 16.07.2011 a marriage was solemnized in accordance with rites and ceremonies prevailing in the Syrian Catholic community to which the appellant and respondent belong.

(3.) At the time of marriage, the respondent was working at IBM India Projects Ltd., at Bangalore as a Software Engineer and he was deputed for an assignment to Finland, a country in Western Europe. On 25.07.2011, the respondent along with the appellant went to Finland to take up his assignment. It is contended by the appellant that during the short period of the parties united as man and wife, appellant found that respondent was a chronic drunkard and behaved in a very abnormal manner, under intoxication. That apart, it is contended that, the respondent was not at all interested in maintaining a cordial and amicable marital relationship with the appellant and the appellant stated several incidents in the Original Petition pointing out the abnormal and unusual behaviour from a highly educated person and he fails to discharge his duties as a husband. The attitude and behaviour of the respondent was unbecoming of a lovable husband, which under the ordinary circumstances would compel the life partner to leave the matrimonial home to join her parents. However, hailing from a traditional Catholic background, which considered marriage as a Sacramental bond, the appellant and her parents expected with hope that the respondent would mend his ways, is the contention.