LAWS(KER)-2017-11-197

CHANDRAN Vs. SUSEELA

Decided On November 13, 2017
CHANDRAN Appellant
V/S
SUSEELA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the petitioner in OP No.1740/2007 of the Family Court, Thrissur challenging order dated 26/4/2010 by which his petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act had been dismissed.

(2.) The short facts arising in the matter are as under:- Petitioner married the 1 st respondent as per Hindu religious custom and rites on 25/1/1982. They had two children of which the elder son was 25 years. It is alleged that the petitioner had a very happy married life during the early days. He works in a company by name Better Builders Construction. Later he found some changes in the attitude of the 1 st respondent. She started disliking and avoiding him. 1 st respondent is an active member of Marxist party. Her brother is a leader. People used to come in their house for matters relating to the party work. On a day when the petitioner had come back from work, he saw the first respondent along with the second respondent sitting in the kitchen of their house and consuming liquor. When he questioned the 1 st respondent, she retorted that she will do whatever she wants. The 2 nd respondent caught hold of him in his neck and threatened to kill him. Thereafter, the 1 st respondent was not behaving to him in a proper manner. He alleges that he was treated with cruelty thereafter. Mediation had taken place before the police. However, 1 st respondent had broke open the office of the petitioner and had locked the office room on her own during May 2007. She also threatened the petitioner's mother and she has taken away all her belongings. He had two motor cycles in his name and she has taken away all the papers of the motor cycle and it was destroyed. She also threatened him that she should be given Rs. 2,32,500/- from the sale consideration of a property which was sold by the petitioner.

(3.) He alleges that 1 st respondent was having illicit sexual intercourse with the 2 nd respondent and therefore he seeks for divorce on the ground of adultery.