VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. VINOD NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the respondent wife against the judgment dated 23.11.2012 of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha in O.P. No. 206 of 2012. The original petition had been preferred by the respondent herein under Sec. 13(1) (1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(2.) The case in the original petition was that the parties were married on 28.8.2005 at Manthrakkal Temple, Kummanodu in accordance with the customary rites of the Hindu Nair community. The petitioner was working as Constable in the BSF and the respondent was a Post Graduate in Commerce. They lived together at the husband's parental house after the marriage and the wife was of adamant nature and created problems in the marital life. The spouses thereafter proceeded to Jalandhar, where the husband was posted. When he was transferred to Rajasthan in Feb., 2006, the wife was brought back to his parental house. It is alleged that on 20.8.2006, she quarrelled with his parents and left the matrimonial home taking all her belongings. It is further stated that the respondent husband came on leave for ten days on 1.10.2006, but the appellant did not join him at his parental house. But they stayed in hotels at Trivandrum and Munnar. He again came on leave on 28.12006 and due to her reluctance to stay at his house, they had to stay at a tourist home at Mavelikkara. Thereafter the appellant came on leave for 45 days on 20.4.2007 and they underwent counselings with a psychologist at Aluva. The respondent contended that he had taken his wife along with him to Rajasthan on 13.10.2007 and she conceived in Jan. 2008. She was brought back home and gave birth to a baby girl on 20.10.2008. It is alleged that the respondent husband met with a major road accident at Rajasthan on 3.1.2009 and suffered grievous injury. After undergoing prolonged treatment at the Military Hospital, he was brought home on a stretcher on 3.7.2009 and was admitted to the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam on 7.7.2009. He underwent major surgeries on 18.8.2009, but the respondent did not care to visit him or look after him during the stay in the hospital. After being discharged from the hospital, the respondent had gone to the appellant's house on 27.9.2009 to see his child, but her father and brother quarrelled with him and assaulted him and he sustained a re-fracture to his hand and had to undergo a major surgery on 29.9.2009 and thereafter, on 10.2009, 7.10.2009 and 4.11.2009 and he was discharged on 14.11.2009. The respondent did not visit him during the said period also. It was alleged that her conduct amounted to cruelty and desertion.

(3.) Written objections were filed by the appellant wife contending that the difference of opinion between the parties had arisen only due to the interference of the respondent's mother and that the allegations of cruelty and desertion as also refusal to live in his parental house were all false. It is stated that on 30.8.2009, the respondent had attacked her with his crutches and she sustained a fracture on her left hand. She alleged cruelty against the husband and his family members. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A7 were marked by the respondent husband. The wife examined herself as RW1 and a relative of the husband was examined as RW2. Considering the extensive treatment records produced by the husband as well as the oral testimony adduced, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the appellant had treated the respondent with mental cruelty. The marriage was therefore dissolved as sought for.