BEENA Vs. ALEXANDER KURIEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for divorce filed under S.10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. Petitioner and the respondent are Jacobites and governed by the provisions of Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The grounds alleged for divorce are adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion,

(2.) The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnised on 28.10.1979 in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act at St. George Chapel, Kuttapuzha, Thiruvalla. Thereafter they lived as husband and wife. However no issue was born cut of the wedlock. The allegations in the petition are follows: After a few weeks of the happy marital life, petitioner understood that her husband the respondent has been in illicit intimacy with the corespondent herein, who was kept as a mistress and practically treated as his wife. This shocking revelation had broken the petitioner and all her hopes of a happy married life were shattered. It is also alleged in the petition that the first respondent was interested in the corespondent and he started treating the petitioner with unbearable cruelty. He always boasted about his relationship with the corespondent, and praised her. Further, the respondent had no love and regard for the petitioner. The respondent was only interested in the petitioner's dowry and her ornaments. There are persistent demands for dowry from the petitioner. According to her, the respondent was a habitual drunkard and had almost become an addict The inhuman and cruel behaviour of the respondent had affected the mental and physical health of the petitioner. She understood that the respondent never wanted her company and as a result, she was forced to go to her parental house on 9-6-1980 and ever since she has been residing there.

(3.) Further, the allegation is that the respondent was guilty of desertion of the petitioner from 9-6-1980. He behaved in such a cruel and unkind manner as to drive away the petitioner from the matrimonial home and he succeeded in his dubious scheme. After the petitioner was forced to flee from the respondent, he had never attempted to bring her back and thereby wilfully deserted the petitioner. No maintenance was also given to her and for that purpose, she filed an application. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed O.P. No. 11 of 1982 before the District Judge, Idukki (Thodupuzha), praying for nullity of marriage alleging that the petitioner was impotent and insane at the time of marriage. Petitioner contested the petition. However, ultimately the petition was dismissed because of the default of the respondent, whose sole object for filing the petition was harassing and humiliating the petitioner.