JOJO THOMAS Vs. DEEPA ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Husband is the appellant in these two Mat.Appeals. He challenges the common order dated 9.1.2012 passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode in O.P.No.429 of 2011 filed by him and O.P.No.621 of 2011 filed by his wife, rejecting his claim for divorce and allowing wife's claim for restitution of conjugal rights. Mat.Appeal No.719 of 2012 arises from dismissal of O.P.No.429 of 2011 and Mat.Appeal No.7 of 2013 arises from order in O.P.No.621 of 2011 granting restitution of conjugal rights.

(2.) The spouses were married on 25.8.2003 as per the Christian religious rites and the female child born to them is six years old. The substance of allegations raised by the appellant in O.P.No.429 of 2011 is that immediately after two weeks of his marriage with respondent, there was substantial change in her behaviour and attitude towards him. She used insulting words harassing him and failed to discharge the matrimonial duties of a wife. She remained unhygienic and used to take bath only once in a week. She refused to cohabit with him and on many occasions, she declared that she was not interested in looking after his affairs. She did not show any interest in continuing matrimonial relationship with him. On 6.9.2004 she left his company taking away all the articles of her. Even though he went on 14.9.2004 to her house to bring her back, she refused and chose to abandon matrimonial relationship with him. On these allegations, he sought dissolution of marriage on twin grounds of cruelty and desertion invoking Sections 10(1)(ix) and Sections 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short, 'the Act') respectively.

(3.) The respondent opposed the O.P. for dissolution of marriage and filed separate original petition as O.P.No.621 of 2011 seeking restitution of conjugal rights invoking Section 32 of the Act. She admitted that she had been residing away from the company of the appellant for the last 6 years. According to her, she is not in any way guilty of desertion and she fastened the entire responsibility for desertion on the appellant. She too admitted that in the initial days, the spouses led a happy married life. When she began going for a job, the appellant started developing suspicion about her and he used to harass her mentally and physically. When she conceived after 1-? 1/2s of their marriage, he insisted her to abort and even threatened to make end of her when she refused. He levelled an allegation that the child in the womb was not his. Physical assaults on her followed on many occasions and in the month of October, 2003, she was taken to her parental house and deserted. Even though her father requested the appellant to take her back, he refused and on 30.11.2003, there was an incident of appellant's family members having created unpleasant scenes at her parental house. After birth of the child, appellant refused to come and see either her or the child and he did not attend even the baptism ceremony of the child conducted on 11.5.2005. He refused to come and see the dead body of her father who died on 7.1.2005. Whenever respondent tried to join and continue matrimonial life, he resisted and on one of the occasions, he even became violent and threw away the child. She denied all acts of cruelty alleged against her and pressed for a decree for conjugal rights. He defended her claim for restitution by filing objection.