LAWS(KER)-2018-4-190

SUSEEL KUMAR K.K. @ SUSEELAN Vs. SUDHARMMA

Decided On April 03, 2018
Suseel Kumar K.K. @ Suseelan Appellant
V/S
Sudharmma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the husband of the respondent. He is the petitioner in O.P.(HMA) 178/2007 of the Family Court, Kottayam. The above original petition was filed under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the respondent. After considering the objection raised by the respondent and evidence on record, the Family Court dismissed the said original petition on a finding that the appellant miserably failed to prove the allegations of cruelty levelled against the respondent. This appeal is filed assailing the finding, whereby the Family Court dismissed the said original petition. The parties are referred to as in the original petition.

(2.) Brief facts of the case can be narrated as follows: The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 7.2000 and two children were born out of the said wedlock. According to the petitioner, the respondent is a quarrelsome lady and she used to allege that the petitioner is having illicit relationship with several other ladies. She created problem forcing the petitioner to stop living in the parental house and he was compelled to purchase three cents of land and he constructed a house therein. She never shown any love or affection towards him. She quarrelled with the petitioner, making false allegations of illicit relationship with the neighbours, Rajani and Radhika. She has gone to the house of Radhika and created a noisy scene there in front of her elder daughter. Though the petitioner informed the problems of the respondent to her parents and other family members, they have not interfered. He told them to take her to a Psychiatrist and they took her to a Phychiatrist, Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Though the Doctor advised to take medicines for a long time, the respondent was not willing for the same. Again she made false allegation that the petitioner is having illicit relationship with one Aswathy of neighbourhood. Though the office bearers of SNDP yogam made an attempt to resolve the problems between the petitioner and the respondent, that also ended in failure. Consequently, the respondent filed a criminal case against the petitioner under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and also for maintenance allowance from the petitioner. Thus, the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the respondent has irretrievably broken and there is no chance for a reunion. With the aforesaid averments the petitioner prayed for a decree, granting dissolution of marriage.

(3.) The respondent filed objection denying the allegations of cruelty levelled against her. According to the respondent, the petitioner has treated the respondent with cruelty and he has no love or affection towards her. The statement that the respondent made false allegation of illicit relationship of the petitioner is absolutely false. She never raised any such allegation connecting the petitioner with any lady. She had not undergone any treatment for any kind of psychiatric problem. Petitioner physically tortured the respondent on several occasions and the attempt of the petitioner is to avoid the respondent. When the physical torture became intolerable, she was compelled to file a complaint before the police and the police, after investigation, registered a crime under Section 498-A of IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner did not pay any maintenance allowance to the respondent and she filed M.C.68/2006, seeking maintenance allowance from the petitioner. She is ready and willing to live with the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for divorce is not allowable, according to the respondent.