LAWS(KER)-2019-11-106

DONA T. GEORGE Vs. MATHEWS PURACKAL

Decided On November 12, 2019
Dona T. George Appellant
V/S
Mathews Purackal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife before the Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P.No.1268 of 2008 is the appellant. She challenges the order passed by the Family Court, dissolving her marriage with the respondent/husband.

(2.) The appellant was married to respondent on 06.01.1992 in accordance with the Christian religious rites and customs. A girl child born to the spouses was studying in 6th standard on the date of institution of the original petition.

(3.) The contention of the respondent in O.P.No.1268 of 2008 is that immediately after the marriage, he noticed the appellant to be suffering from some sort of mental disease and behaving in abnormal manner towards him and the family members. She was for that reason treated in Mental Hospital, Vishranthi Centre in Mundkapadam Mandiram Hospital, Manganam, Kottayam. It was only then he learned that she was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and it started even before marriage for which she had been treated in General Hospital, Rourkela, where her father was employed. Though the respondent found it very difficult to lead a normal matrimonial life with her, he hoped that she would soon recover from the illness and accordingly, he took her to Tamil Nadu, where he was employed in Naiveli Lignite Corporation and the spouses and child lived there till 1995. Thereafter, they came to Doha and after living there till 2000, they lastly came down to Mangalore. In all these places, she was treated for Paranoid Schizoprenia. It is also his contention that she treated him with cruelty throughout and it has not been possible for him to lead a normal life with her. She failed to discharge her duties as a wife and take care of own child. She was often indifferent to him and others and was unreasonably suspicious of him. In 2005, he made his intention very clear with her father that he could no longer lead a matrimonial life with her and therefore, he needed to dissolve the marriage. Her father agreed and since then, the appellant has been staying with her father.