K V SINDHULATHA Vs. K PRAKASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mat.Appeal No.673

(2.) The brief facts of the case can be summarized as follows: The parties are referred to as in the original petition. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 16.5.1997 as per hindu religious and customary rites and two children were born to them in the said wedlock. They cohabitated together upto 1.11.2005. According to the petitioner, after some period of their marriage, the respondent started to harass the petitioner. She told that she cannot reside in a house situated on the hill top. She insisted him to construct another house on the road side. Though he started construction of a new house, he could not complete it. The respondent was born and brought up within the Calicut Corporation area. So she was unable to live in a remote village on a hill top. The petitioner is a coolie. He was maintaining his wife and children with the income derived from his collie work and he was unable to construct a new house immediately, as demanded by the respondent. Therefore, she picked up quarrel with the petitioner and she used to go to her house and stay there for a few days. While so, on 1.11.2005, the respondent went to her house with the children and it was on the date of the death anniversary of his father, she left the house, without saying anything to the petitioner or his family members. There was no sufficient reason for her to go with the children. Since he could not see the children, he telephoned to the house of the respondent and his family members also contacted her over phone several times and requested her to come back. Some mediators also intervened. But, she was not willing to return to her matrimonial home so as to resume cohabitation with him. Later, she obtained transfer certificate of the children from the school where they were studying and got admission in another school near her parental home. Thus, the respondent is residing separately without any reasonable excuse and against his wish and will. In the above circumstances, he filed the petition praying for a direction to the respondent to resume cohabitation.

(3.) The respondent filed a counter statement, admitting the marriage and paternity of the children. According to her, she had obtained 14 sovereigns of gold ornaments, but the petitioner took the ornaments to meet his personal needs and he treated her with cruelty. She denied the allegation that she treated and harassed the petitioner with cruelty. She never stated that she cannot reside in the matrimonial home along with the petitioner. She never refused to live in the house situated on the hill top in a remote village. She denied the allegation that she went to her house without saying anything to the petitioner or his family members. The petitioner or his family members never contacted her and no mediator had intervened, as alleged by the petitioner. She admitted that she has obtained the transfer certificate of the children and got admitted them in a school near to her parental home. According to her, it was for the reason that her son is a physically handicapped boy. She further contended that the petitioner ill-treated her, both physically and mentally on the basis of suspicion. The mother of the petitioner also ill-treated her and she stayed in the house of the petitioner considering the future of the children. When she asked about the gold ornaments, the petitioner assaulted her. Thus, her life in the matrimonial home was not safe. So, she left the house with the children. The petitioner never enquired about the respondent or the children. No maintenance allowance was granted to the respondent or to their children. With the above averments, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.