PRINCY Vs. VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER sought a decree for dissolution of her marriage with respondent on alleged ground of cruelty and desertion by moving a petition under S. 10 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short, 'the Act' ).

(2.) FACTUAL position, as stated by petitioner in a nutshell, is as follows: Petitioner and respondent are Syrian Christians. Their marriage was solemnised on 30. 9. 1985 according to custom of community. A sum of rs. 41,000/- was given to respondent as "sthreedhan" by petitioner's parents. A property was purchased in their joint names by sale deed dated 27. 11. 1987. Amount given by way of Sthreedhan was utilised towards sale consideration. Every now and then, respondent physically assaulted petitioner and she had to take refuge in her parental house in order to escape from cruel behaviour of respondent. Respondent's mental condition was abnormal and had to undergo treatment for mental disorder before and after marriage. On these occasions, physical and mental harassments were more aggressive. Petitioner gave birth to a male child. On 18. 10. 1990, as it became impossible for her to live with her husband, she, along with the child, was forced to leave the company of respondent, only to save her own as well as the life of her child. On intervention of mediators, property purchased on 27. 11. 1987, was partitioned and a deed was executed on 14. 2. 1991. Petitioner sold her share in the property. After 18. 10. 1990, they never lived together and respondent never cared to maintain her and the child. Petition under S. 125 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, "the Code') was filed in the Court of judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanjirappally for getting maintenance. Respondent did not contest the petition and maintenance was granted to petitioner and the child. Even after passing of the order in the petition under s. 125 of the Code, respondent did not pay any amount. On few occasions, respondent came to the house of petitioner only to create further troubles and ugly scenes. Therefore, complaints were filed before police. It was the stand o: petitioner that respondent wilfully deserted her from 18. 10. 1990, without any reasonable excuse or cause.

(3.) LEARNED trial judge, on consideration of materials on record, held that there was desertion as well as cruelty and, therefore, in the absence of any material to prove collusion between the parties, decree for dissolution of marriage was granted. As required under S. 17 of the Act reference has been made to this Court.