VENUGOPALAN A K Vs. C M PUSHPAVALLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUSTAINABILITY of the order passed by the Court below in dismissing the petition for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

(2.) THE appellant was the petitioner in OP 141/1997 filed before the Sub Court, Tellicherry, against the respondent wife contending that respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty after the solemnization of the marriage, thus seeking for a decree of divorce. THE case of the appellant was that he married the respondent as per the Hindu religious rites and rituals on 28/01/1983 in front of the relatives, friends and well wishers and that a child by name 'Ajil sayi' (mentioned as 'Rejil Sai' else where like Annexure D) was born in the wedlock on 28/07/1984. At the time of marriage, the husband was serving the Indian Army, who returned from the military service in 1986. After retirement, he obtained an employment in ACC cement factory and was residing with the wife in the company quarters at Gulbarga in Karnataka for about 5 years. Subsequently, he got re-employed in the New India Assurance Company Ltd., whereupon, he started living in the building constructed in the native land, along with his wife and son.

(3.) THE husband got examined himself as PW1, besides examining three of his friends as PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4. THE wife was examined as RW 1. THE only documentary evidence was Ext. A1 marriage certificate produced and marked by the husband. THE Court below analysed and appreciated the pleadings and evidence on record and observed that the case put up by the husband, alleging 'cruelty' was devoid of any merit or bona fides. It was also observed that the deposition of witnesses PW 2 to 4 was not trustworthy, so as to infer 'cruelty' on the part of the respondent wife. After weighing the evidence, it was observed by the Trial Court that the version put forth by the respondent wife was more probable, than the case put forth by the husband. Accordingly, it was held that there was no cogent and convincing evidence on the side of the husband (appellant/petitioner) to hold that the respondent wife had treated him with cruelty and that the allegations were set up by him only for the purpose of getting divorce. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with cost, which is under challenge in this appeal filed by the husband.