SHEENA BEEGUM, D/O. ABDUL KHARIM Vs. MOHAMMED IQBAL, S/O. ABDUL MAJEED, PEARL VILLA, MANJAMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in 1852/03 on the file of the Family court is the appellant and the 1st respondent in the same case is the appellant in Mat. Appeal No. 136/06.

(2.) The original petition was filed for dissolution of marriage of the petitioner and the first respondent and for return of gold ornaments and money. The short case of the petitioner in the petition was that, the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnised on 04.04.1999 as per custom prevailing in the Muslim community at Cresent Auditorium, Pothenkode. The terms and conditions of the marriage were settled with the brother of the 2nd respondent, who was abroad and as per the settlement, Rs. 2 lakhs has to be given and 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments were also given in connection with the marriage. As per the agreement Rs. 2 lakhs and a rado watch worth Rs. 13,500/- was entrusted to the brother of the 2nd respondent, who in turn given the same to the first respondent on the date of engagement namely 30.03.1999 in the presence of the father and relatives of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner had given 25 cents of land to her. On the next day of marriage, the petitioner wanted to entrust the custody of the gold ornaments to the 1st respondent and as per the directions of the 1st respondent, the same was entrusted to the 2nd respondent. He had misappropriated 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments by selling the same without the consent of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent mis-appropriated the remaining 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments and thereby the respondents have committed breach of trust. After the marriage, the first respondent was demanding more money and when she was not amenable for the same, she has been manhandled with the support and connivance of his parents. When the petitioner disclosed the harassment met by her at the hands of respondents, the father of the petitioner talked to the first respondent and agreed to pay Rs. 2 lakhs and asked him not to harass her further. But he could raise only Rs. 1,60,000/- and the same was entrusted to the 2nd respondent in the presence of the first respondent. Utilizing the amount, the bus with registration No.KEF-7011 was purchased in the name of the first respondent and the same met with an accident during January, 2000 and the respondent wanted the petitioner to get Rs. 50,000/- more from her father to carryout the repairs. When she refused, first respondent manhandled her and on hearing hue and cry the neighbours came and wanted to rescue her. Respondent used abusive words and threatened her with dare consequences. None dare to interfere in the matter, since first respondent is an influential person in a political party. In the meantime she became pregnant and went to the parental home on 28.08.2000 and she gave birth to a male child on 14.10.2000. Two months after delivery, she returned to the respondent's house with the child, but they demanded more money and insisted to sell her property, when she refused, she was manhandled by respondents and they locked her in a room for two days without providing food. When this was informed to her father he came and took her and she underwent ayurvedic treatment. He did not provide any maintenance to herself and the child. It is difficult for her to reside with the first respondent on account of the cruelty met by her at the hands of the respondents in her matrimonial home and she apprehend danger for her life and the life of the child in the matrimonial home. So she filed the above petition for dissolution of marriage under the provisions of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act and also for return of gold ornaments or its value and money paid and claimed a total sum of Rs. 10,23,500/-, of which first respondent is liable to pay Rs. 3,13,500/-, second respondent is liable to pay Rs. 6,10,000/- and third respondent is liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-.

(3.) Respondents entered appearance and filed counter statement contending that, the petition is not maintainable and the court lacks territorial jurisdiction to grant the relief and the petition is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action. They admitted the marriage and birth of the child. They denied the allegation that there was a betothel ceremony and entrustment of money and rado watch as claimed. They also denied the allegation of entrustment and mis-appropriation of gold ornaments by second respondent and third respondent. According to them, there was no necessity for them to demand any money either at the time of betrothel or after the marriage as they were financially sound. They denied the allegation of ill-treatment and harassment alleged by the petitioner. According to them, it was a love marriage and at the time of marriage petitioner was a student and after marriage first respondent sent her for post gradation course in Cooperative college Attingal and thereafter helped her to take B.Ed, course at Nedumangad spending huge amount. He was a bus operator and having two buss at that time. The allegation that, he purchased the bus with the money given by the father of the petitioner is not correct and denied. He had also denied the allegation of insisting her for selling the property given to her and when she refused manhandled and locked her in a room. In fact as insisted by the father of the petitioner, first respondent had sold the buses and started living in the house of the petitioner and thereafter started a business of margin free shop at Pothenkode and he suffered heavy loss and it was closed later. Thereafter he went abroad, but he could not get any job. In the meantime petitioner got an employment as high school teacher and thereafter her attitude changed towards the first respondent and his family members. The difference in educational qualification between them is the root cause for the difference of opinion between them which resulted in filing of divorce. So there is no cruelty as alleged and the petitioner is not entitled to get divorce. The first respondent is interested in taking her back with the child and want to have a happy family life. A false complaint has been filed alleging offence under Section 498A of IPC against the respondent and the proceedings were stayed by the High Court. The respondents are not liable to pay any amount as claimed. According to them, when the father of petitioner wanted Rs. 50,000/- for his purpose, that is refused and that caused enmity for him towards the respondent. Further the petitioner had given her gold ornaments to her father and as such they are not liable to to return the same. They prayed for dismissal of the petition.