N. VASUMATHI Vs. V.P. VALSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mat. Appeal No. 143 of 2012 is filed by the 1st respondent in OP No. 51 of 2011 of the Family Court Thalasserry. The OP is filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking for a divorce under Sections 13(1)(f) and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Between the same parties, two other cases came to be filed. OP No. 874 of 2011 is filed by the brother of the petitioner in OP No. 51 of 2011 seeking for an injunction to restrain respondents, viz., his brother, wife and children from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and interfering with the peaceful possession of the property by the petitioner. He also sought for a mandatory injunction against respondents 2 to 4, the wife and children of his brother Valsan V.P. OP No. 869 of 2011 has been filed by the wife and daughter of petitioner in OP No. 51 of 2011 against Sri. Valsan V.P and his brother, wherein the relief sought was for a declaration that the first petitioner Smt. Vasumathi is the Co-owner of the petition schedule property and an assignment deed executed as per document No. 1197 of 2006 of SRO, Kadirur by the 1st respondent/husband in favour of his brother, 2nd respondent is a sham document and void. They also sought for an injunction to restrain the respondent from trespassing into the petition schedule house and from forcefully evicting them. OP Nos. 874 of 2011 and 869 of 2011 were jointly heard and decided by a common judgment dated 31.1.2014. OP No. 874 of 2011 was allowed by the Family Court against which respondents 2 and 3 have preferred Mat. Appeal No. 303 of 2014. OP No. 869 of 2011 was dismissed against which the petitioners had filed Mat. Appeal No. 406 of 2014. Since the issues arising between the parties are common and interrelated in nature, and have arisen out of a matrimonial tie between Valsan V.P. and Vasumathy N, the appeals are heard and decided together.

(2.) First we shall consider Mat. Appeal No. 1432012 arising from OP No. 51 of 2011. The parties are referred to as shown in the Original Petition unless otherwise stated. The petitioner married the 1st respondent on 22.9.1984 by virtue of an agreement. According to him, there was no customary marriage. They lived together for nearly 19 years and two children were born in their wedlock. The 2nd respondent is a friend of one Sajeevan, his neighbour. The 1st respondent became friendly with the 2nd respondent which resulted in an illicit relationship. In 1997, the family shifted to a rented house at Kali. The 2nd respondent was residing near to the house of the said rented building. At the relevant time, petitioner was unaware of the 1st respondent's relationship. Petitioner is a Theyyam performer and will not be usually available at his residence for several days continuously, especially at the time of festivals. Misusing his absence, the respondents continued their illicit relationship.

(3.) Allegation is that, on 18/3/2004, at about 12.30 a.m., eldest daughter Vivitha had seen the respondents in a compromising position. When the petitioner came back, daughter revealed all these facts and the first respondent was taken to her house by her mother. It is stated that the respondents continued their relationship. It became difficult for the petitioner and his daughter to live with the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent forcefully took away the 2nd daughter Vivinya and filed MC No. 150 of 2006 before the learned Magistrate. Petitioner sold his property to his brother Shibu to pay off his debts. When she attempted to commit trespass, Shibu filed OP No. 173 of 2006 before the Munsiff's Court, Thalassery and obtained an interim injunction against the 1st respondent from committing trespass. Thereafter she filed OP No. 322 of 2006 before the Family Court, Kannur claiming half right over the property. Petitioner further contended that all his theyyam decorative items, jewels and other articles were taken away by the first respondent for which a complaint had been filed. The said acts of the first respondent hurt his religious sentiments. He had suffered much cruelty and humiliation on account of the acts of the first respondent and hence he sought for divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty.