M. PUSHPALATHA Vs. E.K. PRASAAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the wife of the respondent herein. She is the respondent in O.P.52/2006 on the files of the family court, Kozhikode. The respondent filed the above petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The appellant denied all the allegations of cruelty alleged against her. On the rival pleadings both parties adduced evidence. After consider the evidence on record, the family court allowed the original petition by dissolving the marriage, on a finding that the allegation of cruelty alleged against the appellant is more probable and the relationship has been strained so much. This appeal is filed assailing the findings whereby the family court dissolved the marriage.

(2.) Parties are referred to as in the original petition. Brief facts of the case are as follows : The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 28.6.2004. At the time of the marriage the petitioner was working as an Executive officer at Vettakkorumakan temple, Bilathikulam and the respondent was working as a vazhipadu clerk in the same temple. The marriage was a love marriage. There is no issues in the said wedlock. After the marriage they took rented house at Eranhipalam and lived together. According to the petitioner, within a few days of the marriage, there was a change in the behaviour of the respondent against the petitioner. She prevented the petitioner from going to his house and giving money to his mother. She used to quarrel for his visit to his mother. So the petitioner was going to his house without the knowledge of the respondent. She falsely alleged that the petitioner has illicit connection with other women in the office. Mother of the respondent also behaved in an indecent manner. Both the respondent and her mother asked him to give account of his salary and expenses. She used to utter abusive and vulgar languages to him. The respondent abused him by uttering vulgar languages in front of his neighbours and coworkers in the office. She falsely alleged that the petitioner is taking the four year old child of his sister for his sexual satisfaction. Due to the ill-treatment and harassment, he could not do his job in the office peacefully. Due to the misbehaviour from the part of the respondent, the petitioner's friends and relatives avoided him and he was leading an isolated life. Due to the cruel treatment from the part of the respondent, he was living separately from the respondent from 4.10.2005 onwards. He is unable to continue the marital relationship with the respondent as it is intolerable to him. Hence he prayed for granting divorce to him.

(3.) The respondent filed counter statement admitting the marriage but she denied the allegations of cruelty alleged against him. According to her, the petitioner treated her with cruelty. She denied the allegation that she resisted the petitioner from going to his house and making payment to his parents. She never made any quarrel with the petitioner in front of neighbours or co-workers. But he was coming to the house very late after job. She never made an allegation that the petitioner has illicit connection with any other woman. At the time of marriage, she had 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and she acquired the said ornaments using her own savings from the salary but the petitioner appropriated the same and used the sale proceeds to meet his own personal needs. The petitioner used to consume liquor every day and brought liquor to the house. He never paid any amount towards maintenance allowance after withdrawal from the company with her. The allegations of cruelty are made against her without any basis as to avoid payment of maintenance allowance to her. However, she expressed her willingness to resume cohabitation with the petitioner. Hence she prayed for dismissal of the petition.