BINU KUMAR Vs. A. ANUSREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the husband of the respondent. The respondent filed O.P.No.1302/2013 under Section 13 (1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking a decree for the dissolution of marriage between the appellant and respondent on the ground of cruelty. The respondent resisted the prayer for dissolution of marriage and after considering the evidence adduced by both parties, the family court passed the impugned judgment and decree dissolving the marriage between the appellant and respondent. The legality and correctness of the findings, whereby the family court passed the impugned judgment and decree dissolving the marriage, are challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case can be summarized as follows: The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 02.02.2012. At the time of marriage the appellant was working in Japan. Before the marriage, the appellant promised that the respondent would be taken to Japan, where he is working, after the marriage. The appellant and the respondent lived together till 11.02.2012 and the appellant went to Japan on 11.02.2012. On 14.02.2012, the respondent went to Delhi where the parents of the appellant were residing. The respondent was given 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, and the said gold ornaments were taken away by the parents of the appellant saying that it would not be safe, if the respondent keeps the gold ornaments in her custody. After one month, the parents of the appellant persuaded the petitioner to demand Rs.5,00,000/- as pocket money from her parents or to get a house in Thiruvananthapuram city. When the respondent intimated the appellant that his parents demanded Rs.5,00,000/- or a house at Thiruvananthapuram, the appellant replied that the respondent has to obey the demand of his parents. The parents of the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty and she was not allowed to communicate with the appellant freely and independently. She was allowed to contact with the appellant in the presence of the parents of the appellant only. She was not allowed to contact anybody other than the parents of the appellant. Eventually they started to manhandle her and assaulted her. They treated her as a servant only. The parents of the appellant took her mobile and did not allow her to call anybody. She was not allowed to contact with her parents also. Thus the respondent lived along with the parents of the appellant for two months only; but they tortured her mentally and physically. Even though the respondent repeatedly made complaints alleging cruelty from the part of the parents of the appellant to the appellant, he did not respond to her grievance and eventually he stopped all kinds of communications to her through electronic media. At last her father came to Delhi and she went along with her father to her house. On 13.04.2014 she went to her house after taking her necessary dresses, one chain, two bangles and one pair of ear-stud only. On the above premises the respondent prayed for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Act.

(3.) The appellant resisted the claim for dissolution of marriage. According to the averments in the written statement, the facts pleaded in the original petition are absolutely false and unfounded. He denied the allegation that he himself and his parents treated the respondent with cruelty. He admitted the marriage, which was held on 02.02.2012. It is also admitted that he lived along with the respondent for nine days only, from 02.02.2012 t0 11.02.2012 and thereafter he went to Japan, the place where he was working and thereafter, the respondent lived with his parents, in their flat at Delhi till 13.04.2012. But, according to him, during the said period his parents never treated the respondent with cruelty. They were living in a harmonious relationship with mutual love and affection. The parents of the appellant did not interfere with the marital life of the appellant and the respondent. The respondent was a toy in the hands of her parents. As per the instructions and demand of her parents, she left to the house of his parents at Delhi on her own volition. He denied the allegation that his parents were entrusted with 64 sovereigns of gold ornaments and they have not returned the same to her. He denied the allegation that his parents have prevented her from contacting him by all means. According to him, it is false to say that the respondent was not provided with food, kept her in darkness; on the other hand, she had full freedom. He denied the allegation that his parents had demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as pocket money and persuaded her to get land and building in Thiruvananthapuram from her parents as gift to her. He used to contact her through telephone, e-mail and skype and continued till March 2013. He prayed for dismissing the original petition.