M.J. SHIBIN Vs. K.C. DIJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from a common judgment in O.P.No.1878 of 2010 and G.O.P.No. 2230 of 2012 dated 20.11.2014 of the Family Court, Thrissur. Appellant husband is the petitioner and the respondent wife is the respondent in O.P.No.1878 of 2010. O.P.No.1878 of 2010 for divorce was dismissed by the Family Court. G.O.P.No.2230 of 2012 for obtaining the custody of the minor child was also dismissed giving the husband a visitorial right to the child. The petitioner in O.P.No.1878 of 2010 has filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of his petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner in the original petition that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 19.10.2009. After the marriage, they resided together at the residence of the petitioner. A male child was born on 28.8.2010 in the wedlock. The petitioner was suffering from lumbar disc prolapse. The above problem was taken seriously by the respondent. She believed that she was cheated by the petitioner. In December, 2009, the respondent became pregnant but she never cared or loved the petitioner. She used to insult the petitioner without any reason. Her attitude was that she wants to see that the child is aborted. The petitioner suspected the mental condition of the respondent. In June, 2010 the respondent insisted that she should be taken to her parental house, otherwise she will file a complaint before the Police. Accordingly, the petitioner took the respondent to her parental house but the respondent and her mother made an allegation that the petitioner got illicit connection with his mother. Such an allegation had been made without any basis and only to insult the petitioner and his mother. On 28.8.2010, the respondent gave birth to a male child. For the 28th day celebration of the child, neither the respondent nor her family members invited the petitioner but the petitioner and his mother went to the residence of the respondent. When the petitioner enquired about the return of the respondent, the respondent stated that the child is not of the petitioner and the petitioner has no potency. Due to the continued insult by the respondent, the petitioner sustained serious mental agony. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to get a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

(3.) The respondent filed objections admitting the marriage and the birth of the child. But she denied that after fixing the marriage, the respondent behaved indifferently towards the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner who used indecent language over telephone even before the marriage. The contention that the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and insulted the petitioner and his family members was denied. The contention that due to the petitioner's disc prolapse, the respondent suspected the petitioner's potency and she has commented that she was cheated by the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner had informed the respondent that due to disc prolapse it is not possible for him to have a complete marital life. It is denied that the respondent made false allegations against the petitioner connecting him with his mother. The petitioner is unreasonably obliging to his mother and never heard the opinion of the respondent. After the respondent left the matrimonial home for the purpose of delivery, neither the petitioner nor his relatives enquired about the respondent. For the 28th day celebration of the child, there was no precedence of inviting the husband and his relatives. They have to come to the residence of the respondent for that celebration. The attempt of the petitioner is only to divorce the respondent and marry another lady who may bring more gold and money. There is no bonafides in the petition. The respondent never treated the petitioner with cruelty.