LAWS(KER)-2018-3-437

JAMES LUKOSE AND OTHERS Vs. BEELA JAMES

Decided On March 12, 2018
James Lukose And Others Appellant
V/S
Beela James Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these appeals are filed challenging a common judgment passed in OP 480/2006 and OP 283/2005 of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of accordingly. In both the appeals the husband of the respondent is the appellant. The appellant filed OP 480/2006 under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act for a decree dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent under Section 10 (1) (ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act 1869. The parties are referred to as in the original petition. OP No. 283/2005 was filed by the respondent/wife seeking a decree for realizing the money and gold ornaments from the appellant. The brief facts of the case can be summarized as follows:

(2.) The respondent filed objection denying the allegations of cruelty and desertion levelled against her. According to her, it is the appellant and his mother who behaved cruelty towards the respondent. During the period of her pregnancy, the mother of the appellant manhandled her and there was a criminal case against the mother-in-law, in this respect. Because of the cruelty of the parents of the appellant, they shifted their residence to another property, after purchasing the same and there they constructed a house, by selling gold ornaments of the respondent. She denied the allegation that she has been suffering from mental disorder. According to her, the appellant made a false allegation of mental disorder to get a decree of divorce and there is no bona fides at all in that allegation. She never manhandled the appellant or the child. While they were living together at Mattakkara the appellant kept Ganja in that house and when the respondent objected it, the appellant manhandled her. The neighbours intervened and filed a police complaint against the appellant. The respondent also filed a complaint against husband. The appellant has thrown out the respondent and children from the house at Ayarkunmam and left the place after locking the house. Even though she made an attempt to live together pursuant to a compromise on 25.7.2003, the appellant demanded the gold chain worn by the respondent and when she refused, he manhandled her and left the place taking the younger child. On 6.1.2004 the appellant came back and manhandled the respondent and she was taken to hospital by her father. When she returned from the hospital on 10.1.2004 the house was found locked and because of that reason she was constrained to start living along with her parents. With the aforesaid averments the respondent prayed for dismissal of the original petition seeking dissolution of marriage.

(3.) OP 283/2005 was filed by wife/respondent claiming an amount of Rs. 75,000/- and 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments which were given to the appellant in connection with the marriage at the time of marriage. That apart, she claimed an amount of Rs. 21,600/- as the value of the articles which were given to the appellant by the parents of the respondent and 12¾ sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value which was given to the children at the time of baptism.