AMRITHAA Vs. V KRISHNA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal arises out of the judgment in F.C.O.P.No.2359 of 2004 on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai dismissing the Petition filed by the Appellant/wife under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:- THE marriage between the Appellant and Respondent was solemnised on 28.10.1983 and out of the lawful wedlock, two children were born - first son was born on 21.4.1985 and second son was born on 1.9.1988. Case of Appellant/wife is that after the marriage, she found that the Respondent was abusing medicines like cough syrups and consuming them in great quantities and that he had no interest in the Appellant and showed indifference and neglect towards her. Further case of Appellant is that Respondent's indifference and neglect towards her caused mental agony to her. Further case of Appellant is that the Respondent spoke to her on limited occasions and he refused to acknowledge her existence. Appellant further averred that unable to withstand the indifference and abuse she left the matrimonial house on four occasions. However, keeping the welfare of children in mind, she re-joined the Respondent. THE Appellant further averred that the Respondent contributed very meagre amount to the household expenses and when she took up employment to tide over financial difficulties, the Respondent resigned his job as Senior Manager from Ashok Leyland, all of which caused mental agony and cruelty to the Appellant.

(3.) BEFORE the Family Court, Appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 was marked. The Respondent/R.W.1, even though filed proof affidavit, inspite of adjournments, he did not turn up for cross-examination and Ex.R.1 was marked on his side. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Family Court held that the evidence of Appellant/P.W.1 is not specific about the cruelty and negatived the Appellant's plea of cruelty. The Family Court further held that the Respondent has been visiting the Appellant and children once in a month and he was also contributing to the educational expenses of children and held that there was no intentional desertion on the part of Respondent and on those findings, the trial Court did not accept the case of Appellant on both the grounds of cruelty and desertion and dismissed the Petition for divorce.