GAYATHRI Vs. MANOJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from the matrimonial issues that arose between a couple. O.P.No.1173 of 2006 has been filed by the husband for a declaration that the marriage between the couple is null and void. Alternatively, he sought for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

(2.) The short facts of the case is as under; The parties are described as shown in the original petition unless otherwise stated. The marriage between the couple was solemnised on 26.10.2003 as per the Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. A child was born in the wedlock on 24.2.2006. According to the petitioner, while his wife was pregnant, she was taken to Raja Hospital at Chavakkad. From there, she was referred to Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur and during the treatment, it was noticed that she was suffering from Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP). He later found that she was suffering from the said disease even before the marriage and she was undergoing treatment for the same. He contended that it is an incurable disease which fact was not brought to his notice prior to the marriage. At the time of delivery she was provided with 11 bottles of blood. Even the hospital authorities were not willing to undertake her delivery on account of the risk involved in the matter. According to him, in so far as this fact was not brought to his notice prior to the marriage, he seeks for a declaration that the marriage is null and void. It is further contended that after delivery, the wife was taken to the parental home and thereafter they did not live together as husband and wife. He attempted to visit her on a few occasions at her house but the attitude towards him was not cordial and he was abused by his wife and her parents. He was unable to visit his child and she was not interested to continue the marital life. Every time when he attempted to visit his child, he was abused and he was asked to go away from her residence. The change in the attitude of the respondent, according to him, was on account of the fact that the petitioner and his family members had came to know about the disease she was suffering. The attitude which was shown against him by the respondent and her parents amounts to cruelty and therefore he sought for dissolution of marriage as well. The respondent denied the allegations. According to her, she was not aware of any such disease. She has irregular periods which has been treated and therefore there was no reason for concealing any particular fact which would affect the marital relationship at all. Her complaint was that demanding dowry, she was being harassed and the respondent had taken away all her gold ornaments, except a gold chain, an ear ring and five bangles and the rest of the gold ornaments were misappropriated. She also stated that she was subjected to cruelty. She denied having abused the petitioner by herself or her parents. According to her, the petitioner did not come to enquire about her nor has visited the child. Since no maintenance has been paid, she had to file a case demanding maintenance.

(3.) In order to prove the case, three witnesses were examined from the side of the petitioner as PWs. 1 to 3. Respondent was examined as RW1. Exts.A1 to A12 and Ext.B1 were the documents relied upon. The Family Court found that a declaration as sought for cannot be granted, but having considered the question of dissolution of marriage, it was found that from the attitude of the wife it is clear that there was mental cruelty and accordingly granted divorce as sought for.