M. RAMACHANDRA WARRIER Vs. C.P. JAYASREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the order of dismissal of O.P.No.308/2007 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. The original petition was filed under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act r/w Section 7 of the Family Court Act. Hereafter the parties are referred to as shown in the original petition.

(2.) The husband was the petitioner. At the time of filing the petition, the petitioner was aged 44 years, whereas the respondent was aged 42 years. Marriage took place on 1.4.1998. The petitioner belongs to Hindu Warrier community, whereas the respondent/wife belongs to Nair community. As per the petition averments, they stayed together after the marriage only for four days, but a child was born on 5.2.1999. It was the case of the petitioner that he has not completed his school education, whereas the respondent is a postgraduate working as a teacher in a parallel college. It is the grievance of the petitioner that while they were living separately, the respondent herein filed O.P.No.183/2001 for restitution of conjugal rights and M.C.No. 36/2002 for maintenance and further she filed O.P.No.162/2002 for return of amount and gold ornaments. Except M.C.No. 36/2002 both the above referred original petitions were not prosecuted. The case projected by the petitioner was that those original petitions were filed only for harassing the petitioner. Even though order was passed in M.C.No.36/2002, it was not executed. She also filed a C.M.P.No.344/2007 under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and prohibitory order was also obtained. It was also alleged that by filing false complaints before the police, she used to harass the petitioner and about more than 20 days, he was compelled to appear before the police and was harassed from therein. It was also the case that the proceeding under the Judicial Magistrate Court at Changanassery under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was also to harass him. Further, he got a case that on 14.1.2007, he was attacked by the henchman of the respondent. It is the further case that without any reasonable excuse or ground, the respondent deserted the petitioner. The divorce petition was filed on the ground of desertion and cruelty.

(3.) The respondent appeared and contested the case. Respondent denied the allegations. It is the case of the respondent that she was treated with cruelty. Whenever she approached the court, he will make false offer to take her home and got dismissed those petitions. It is the case of the respondent that she was always ready to join with him.