P P RANGANAYAKI Vs. P P GOVINDACHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first plaintiff is the wife of the defendant. Plaintiff No. 2 is the son of the defendant and plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 1 filed a suit for maintenance, past and future, for herself and also for her minor son at the rate of Rs.500/- and Rs.200/- respectively and also for return of the jewellery. It is stated the jewellery consists of 15 soverign of gold in two items - three bangles and one chandraharam, and with regard to silver jewellery it consists of silver items of 300 tolas. The marriage between plaintiff No.1 and the defendant took place on 18-11-1983. From 304-1984 they were living separately. By that time plaintiff No. 1 was pregnant. She gave birth to a male child on 26-8-1984. The husband sent a lawyer's notice on 10-8-1984 followed by a reply. Thereafter, he filed O.P.No. 235 of 1985 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The present suit was subsequent to O.P.No. 235 of 1985. Subsequently the defendant, with the permission of the Court, withdrew the application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is numbered as O.P.NO. 16 of 1987 and this was filed on 2-2-1987. The grounds on which the said application was filed are cruelty and desertion. Both the matters were clubbed together and they were disposed of by a common order. The Lower Court found the plea of the husband with regard to cruelty and desertion as correct and having found so it granted decree for maintenance to the extent of the minor boy only. Being dissatisfied, the wife filed C.M.A. No. 1125 of 1991 in this Court against the order granting decree for divorce. She also filed an appeal in the Court below and the same has been withdrawn and numbered as Tr.A.S. No.926 of 1992 in this Court. Reconciliation efforts have been made during the time of the trial and also in this Court when this matter has come up before another Bench and they have failed. It is an admitted case now that the husband had married again. The assertion of the husband is that wife also married again. But there is no positive proof. It is left in doubt. We appreciate if she married again and we welcome the proposal of marrying again as the young lady should not be allowed to be free particularly when she is doing some job which may give rise to some rumours from different quarters.

(2.) The minor boy is living with his mother and he had no occasion to see the face of his father and the father also had no occasion to see the boy. On one time, though permission was sought to see the boy and the Court granted the same, according to the wife, he has not cared to see the boy. In this manner each is asserting cruelty against the other. On different aspects the gulf has been widened so much that it has become impossible for any one to reunite them. The allegations levelled by each other are only minor in nature and they are common and happen in every family that too in the beginning. Instead of paving way for reuniting them, the circumstances made them to live apart and the fact that the husband married again ultimately widened the gulf more than what is nuturally expected.

(3.) Since the Lower Court has accepted the ground of cruelty and also of desertion we feel that that finding may not be interfered with in view of the subsequent change of circumstances. On appreciation of evidence also we confirm the decree for divorce. Therefore, C.M.A.No. 1125 of 1991, filed by plaintiff No. 1 against the order of divorce, is dismissed.