AJAYAKUMAR P.K. Vs. DELFIMOL V.K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned Mat.appeals are arising from the common judgement of the Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P.No.1153/2006 and O.P.No.47/2013 dated 26.05.2014 respectively. O.P.No.1153/2006 is preferred by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage and O.P.No.47/2013 was preferred by the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The petition filed by the appellant for dissolution was dismissed and the petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. It is thus challenging the common judgement passed in the above original petitions these appeals are preferred.

(2.) Appellant and respondent are husband and wife. Since the evidence adduced in both the cases are common and the Family Court has disposed of the cases by a common judgement, we also propose to dispose of the same by this common judgement. O.P.No.1153/2006 pertaining to M.A.No.686/2014 is filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (i -a) (i -b) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, contending that the appellant and respondent are Hindus belonging to Pulaya Community. Appellant is a Engineering Graduate running a tuition centre for school going students of Plus 1 and Plus 2. He is also running an agency office viz; 'Technical Publishers and Distributors' at Irinjalakuda. The respondent is a teacher at St.Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Tripunithura. Marriage between the appellant and the respondent were solemnized on 4.9.1999 as per the religious rites and they were residing together at Irinjalakuda. It is contended that the respondent after the marriage did not show any love and affection to the appellant, that she was never satisfied with the job and salary received by the appellant from a private concern at Chalakudy as a Supervisor. The respondent used to express dissatisfaction against the job that was undertaken by the appellant and every now and then she used to be cruel on account of this. Respondent also left the house on and off without the consent of the appellant and as a dutiful husband he used to pacify her and take her back to the marital home. In spite of all these affection shown by the appellant, the respondent neglected the appellant without any rhyme or reason. It is also contended that a girl child was born to the parties on 21.11.2001, named Akshara. The appellant has shown love and affection in abundance to the child and the appellant also has deposited an amount of Rs.45,000/ - in favour of the child in a Service Co -operative Bank for a period of 20 years and an amount of Rs.35,000/ - was deposited in the same bank in the joint names of the appellant and the respondent for a period of 72 months.

(3.) That apart respondent compelled the appellant to shift their residence to Ernakulam leaving the aged parents of the appellant at Irinjalakuda. Since the appellant was the only son of his parents, he was reluctant to leave Irinjalakuda by abandoning his parents there. Respondent always blamed the appellant for having not secured a Government job. The respondent always used filthy and abusive language not only against him but also against his aged parents. That apart it is contended that, during the period from 2002 to 2004 he was working as a teacher in a parallel college and later during the period 2004 - 2005, he was working as a Supervisor on contract basis in a public limited company who have undertaken works in the Kochin Refineries limited, Ambalamughal and it was at that point of time that the respondent secured a job in St.Joseph's School, Tripunithura and it was thus considering the convenience of the parties, the appellant took a house on lease at Tripunithura also taking into account the advice of his parents. In spite of all these, the respondent frequently expressed her dissatisfaction with respect to the job of the appellant and the respondent refused to go to the house of the appellant during weekends. Apart from the same, the respondent did not permit the appellant to go to his house to take care of his parents and that apart the child was also prevented from visiting her grandparents.