SIVARAMAN Vs. VIJAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defeated husband/petitioner in an application for divorce of the marriage in O.P. No. 82/2006 of the Family Court, Palakkad, came up with this appeal against its verdict dated 14.05.2007.

(2.) There is no dispute with respect to the solemnisation of marriage between the appellant/petitioner and respondent/respondent as early as on 08.05.1994 and that there is an issue born in that wedlock, 'Anupama', on 31.03.1995. The appellant husband was a teacher in Higher Secondary School at that time. According to the appellant, after the solemnisation of marriage the behaviour and attitude of the respondent became indifferent and she used to pick up quarrel with him without sufficient reason. She even demanded to entrust his entire monthly salary to her and also for the issuance of a receipt of her ornaments and also insisted for a separate house for their residence. The marriage engagement ceremony of appellant's sister was held on 18.05.1997 and she created unnecessary issues at the function and abused the appellant in the presence of near relatives and deserted him from that day onwards. On 20.08.1997 she came to the house of the appellant and took her domestic utensils, lantern etc. Though the appellant went to the house of the respondent on 12.05.1998 along with three of his friends for having a reunion by settling the issues, the respondent took an adamant stand and unleashed indecent language, which has resulted in filing a complaint before the police raising false allegations against the appellant/petitioner.

(3.) The respondent/wife disputed and denied all these allegations and advanced a case that the appellant never performed his obligations and took away 52 sovereigns of gold on the 17th day of marriage besides the dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant ill-treated the respondent demanding more dowry and ornaments, both physically and mentally. She was thrown out of the house by force by the appellant along with his in-laws claiming more dowry amount in connection with the marriage of his sister. On 11.01.1998 the brother of the appellant one Unnikrishnan brutally manhandled her and poured kerosene over her body. On 21.09.1999 the appellant issued a lawyer notice demanding divorce by mutual consent. The respondent was not interested in obtaining a decree for divorce and hence resisted the application. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on consideration of the pleadings and evidence, found that the appellant is not entitled to the grant of a decree of divorce and consequently the application was dismissed by the common order dated 14.05.2007 against which this appeal is preferred by the appellant/husband.