THRESIAMMA MANSHOVEN Vs. MANSHOVEN JACQUES JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of matrimonial issues that had arisen between a couple who got married under the Special Marriage Act on 27/3/1985. Both the appeals are filed by the wife. Mat.Appeal No.212/2012 has been filed against the order in OP(S.M.A.) No.681/2007 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and Mat.Appeal No.354/2016 has been filed by her against the judgment dated 30/11/2015 in OP No.876/2012 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Since both the appeals arise out of the issues relating to the same couple, those are heard and decided together.

(2.) OP(S.M.A.) No.681/2007 was filed by the husband seeking divorce. According to him, he is a Belgium citizen and he married the appellant, who is an Indian citizen by birth on 27/3/1985 as per the law prevailing at Belgium and in terms with the Civil Code of the Municipality of Alken, Judicial District Tongeren Province of Limburg. Though the marriage was solemnized in 1985, they were living together since 1982 at Thiruvananthapuram District at Kumarapuram and PTP Nagar. They have two sons born out of the wedlock. They remained at Belgium till August, 1987. Both of them shifted their residence to appellant's native place and started residing at Thiruvananthapuram from 18/8/1987 onwards. He had also wound up all his business in Belgium and all his belongings were shifted to Thiruvananthapuram. Since it was not possible to acquire properties in his name, he being a foreign citizen, he purchased 1 acre of land in Pangappara Village in the name of the appellant, constructed a residential building with modern facilities like swimming pool, tennis court etc., and the entire money for purchase of land and construction of building was expended by him. He also received orders for artwork and he started an Art Studio in the year 1988, undertaking decorative drawing jobs and exporting the drawings to Belgium clients. Since there was legal issue relating to registration of a company in his name, the company was registered in the name of his wife and the entire activity was undertaken in her name. The business grew fast and it expanded with more than 50 employees. All the sale proceeds received were deposited in the bank account maintained in the name of the appellant. Several other properties were also purchased at Thiruvananthapuram, Kottayam and Kollam by utilizing the income so received. According to the husband, the unexpected wealth that had come in the name of the appellant made her arrogant, dictatorial and discourteous. She started taking advice from outsiders and relatives instead of consulting him and he was completely ignored. He felt isolated, discriminated and overruled and he was unable to lead a normal life. It reached a stage where even for his personal purpose, he had to ask money from the respondent as the entire money was held by her in her account. Later, the petitioner/husband had come to know that the appellant was having an illegitimate girl child and he was in contact with her and the father of the child was the direct uncle of the respondent. Respondent used to visit her daughter regularly and father of the child was given major portion of the income from the said business. The fact that she had an illegitimate girl child and she was given in marriage was suppressed from the petitioner. Alleging that this caused cruelty and mental tension, he sought for divorce. Subsequently, he acquired P.I.O. status and was capable of acquiring property and to start business in his own name. When he requested the appellant to make him a shareholder in the company, she refused. She sold the properties, purchased new properties and constructed new buildings without consulting the petitioner. Finally, petitioner started companies in his own name. He further alleged that she deserted him from November, 2009 onwards without reasonable cause. The disharmony of the family increased day by day and she was abusing him whenever she gets a chance. She also started commenting against the lady staff in the petitioner's institution. She arranged goondas to do away with him, his business partner and employees. Even his personal belongings were damaged. Taking into account all these facts and the fact that she deserted him for the last three years, he sought for divorce.

(3.) Respondent denied the allegations. She contended that petitioner was a married man, but he was not having any issues. He adopted a boy during which time, petitioner and the first wife met the respondent. They adopted a female child. The appellant was working as a typist in the office of the petitioner and he persuaded her to live with him and that he would marry her. They lived together for quite sometime and finally they got married on 27/3/1985. She contended that she was working in the company of the petitioner and her salary was 6,000/- francs per month and she worked for about 18 months. She denied that the property was acquired in her name and the building was constructed with the funds expended by the petitioner. According to her, his business concern was sold and the entire sale proceeds amounting to Rs.3 crores was deposited in the name of respondent in USA and out of the said funds, Rs.21,50,000/- was spent for the purchase of property and construction of the building. When the petitioner requested that the amount deposited in USA should be given to him, she readily agreed and the money was transferred. Her contention was that the money does not belong to him exclusively. She further contended that the company was started with the funds sent by Mr.Peters August and not with the funds of the petitioner. She had given advertisements in daily newspaper and selected more artists for the work and it was her business activity and she was doing everything concerned for the business and the money belongs to her alone. She denied the other allegations against her. According to her, petitioner is in the company of one Varsha and other friends and is leading a free and luxurious life. It is the petitioner who was behaving cruelly. She further stated that petitioner was aware of her illegitimate child even before he met the respondent. It was a physically handicapped child and she had never contacted the said child. On the date of birth of the child itself, it was removed to an orphanage and after she started living with the petitioner, she was a sincere and dutiful wife. She denied the allegations made by the petitioner and that she had deserted her.