KUMAR V UNNITHAN Vs. MANJU K NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed by the husband who is the petitioner in O. P. (HMA) No. 699/2005 on the file of the Family court Alappuzha. The appellant has filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The Family court after considering all the aspects in detail, found that the appellant has not succeeded in proving the matrimonial offence of cruelty against the respondent wife as envisaged under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and thereby he is not entitled to get the relief of divorce as prayed for. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment the appellant-husband has filed the appeal seeking reversal of the judgment and decree. The parties before this Court are arrayed as petitioner and respondent as in the Original petition for the sake of convenience.

(2.) THE parties to the Original petition are examined as PW1 and RW1 respectively. The petitioner produced Ext. A1 to A3 and the respondent produced Exts. B1 to B18 in support of their pleadings and respective contentions.

(3.) THE facts of the case in brief is as follows: the petitioner-husband is an engineering graduate in Mechanical Engineering and was working as Senior Executive, customer Support in TATA Motors at Ernakulam and the respondent was doing her internship following her MBBS course in the Medical College Alappuzha at the time of marriage. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 4-5-2003 as per the Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. The respondent completed the internship by the middle of July 2003. Thereafter the respondent got employment as a Doctor on ad hoc basis in the Taluk Hospital at Haripad which is her hometown. The petitioner-husband wanted the respondent to work in any private hospital at Ernakulam so that they can continue their joint residence at Ernakulam. But the respondent accepted the job in the Taluk hospital at Haripad. On completion of the employment at Haripad the respondent again got another engagement in the Primary Health Centre Karthikapally. According to the petitioner, the respondent insisted for the job at Haripad and nearby places when he wanted her to be employed in Ernakulam so that both parties can reside jointly. It is alleged by the petitioner that it is only at the instance of the respondent and her mother that he sent her for jobs at Haripad and Karthikapally. According to the petitioner after the respondent started to reside with her mother at Haripad she was not caring her husband and was reluctant to contact the petitioner. The petitioner though tried to convince the respondent and her mother that it is better for their life to find a job at Ernakulam, the respondent and her mother were not amenable for the same. The petitioner further alleged that his wife informed him that her mother had made all other arrangements to start a clinic at their place of residence and a name board to that effect was also installed and therefore she started her permanent stay at her residence along with her mother. The petitioner strongly opposed the proposal and intimated her mother about the same. Then at the intervention of the respondent's relatives she reluctantly agreed to join the petitioner at Ernakulam and joined in the Lake Shore Hospital, Ernakulam on 6-10-2003. The petitioner and the respondent shifted their residence from their independent building in which they were residing to the upstair portion of a nearby house for safety reasons as the petitioner had to travel a lot as part of his job and he has to be away from the residence for two or three days continuously. According to the petitioner whenever he goes for a tour in connection with his job, the respondent used to leave the house without his permission and go to her residence at Haripad and stay with her mother. The petitioner's further complaint is that his wife is not taking care of him and not attending the day-to-day affairs of the house such as cooking washing etc. and she was reluctant to attend her job at the Lake Shore hospital. It is further alleged that the salary received by the respondent-wife was sent to her mother without his consent and knowledge and she was very reluctant for physical relationship with the petitioner. Moreover the respondent and her mother insisted that the petitioner should leave his native place and to reside at Haripad with them. The petitioner also alleged that the respondent started to defame the petitioner and his parents and also used to spread unhealthy news about the petitioner to the house owner and to the staff members of his officer that the petitioner is not allowing the respondent to continue her post graduate study. It is further alleged that without the permission of himself the respondent joined in a tuition centre for Entrance Examination at Kottayam. The mediations and conciliations on several occasions by the involvement of the relatives of both the family did not make any change in the attitude and behaviour of the respondent. The respondent was reluctant to reside with the petitioner's parents, and to mingle with his only sister. The petitioner stated several instances of quarrelsome relationship between them. He further alleged that the miserable dealings and unhealthy character of the respondent spoiled his peace of mind and concentration even for attending his duties and that the attitude of the respondent made it difficult or him to continue a peaceful life with the respondent. Again there was mediation at the instance of the family members of both the parties and a decision was taken that the respondent should stay with petitioner's parents at least for two months to learn how to carry on a peaceful family life. But that arrangement also did not last long and on 22-9-2004 the respondent left the matrimonial home. The petitioner took all the belongings of the respondent and handed over the same to her at her residence. According to the petitioner, the respondent had threatened the petitioner with dire consequences if he insists her to reside with his parents. He also narrated an incident alleging that the respondent got into the bedroom locked it from inside and shouted to the petitioner that she is going to cut the vein of her hand. It is also alleged that in another occasion the respondent threatened the petitioner that if he does not obey her demands, the petitioner will be put behind bars on the allegation of dowry offence. Thus the relationship has irretrievably broken and there is no chance for any reunion. The continuation of marital relationship with the respondent will ruin the life and prosperity of the petitioner and that her rebellious and vengeous attitude towards the petitioner without any reason had wounded his feelings deeply and that sadistic and cruel attitude extended by the respondent-wife had reached the depth of the petitioner's heart and the wounds thus created due to cruel attitude of the respondent are not curable.