## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC**
**& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN**
## **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/24TH JYAISHTA 1935**
**Mat.Appeal.No. 831 of 2011 ( )**
**-----------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(DIV) NO.847/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM.**
**........**
## **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER**
**--------------------------------------------**
**ANTONY @ PRASANTH S/O.GEORGE, MITHRAPPALLY HOUSE, KUDAVECHOOR P.O. VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 001.**
**BY ADV. SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN**
## **RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT**
**-----------------------------------------------**
**THRESIA @ SEEMA, W/O.PRASANTH, ERMATTAKALATHIL (BABY VILLA), PALOOTHARA THANNEERMUKKOM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 527.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU R1 BY ADV. SRI.JAGAN GEORGE R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.PRAMOD**
**THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**tss**
## **ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D.RAJAN, JJ.**
-------------------------------------------
Mat.A.No.831 of 2011
------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of June, 2013
## **JUDGMENT**
## Antony Dominic, J.
- 1.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
- 2.Appellant was the petitioner in OP.(Div).847/10 on the files of the Family Court, Kottayam, where he sought dissolution of his marriage with the respondent.
- 3.Appellant married the respondent on 11.4.2005 at St.Mary's Church, Kudavechoor in terms of the customs that are prevailing in their community. After the marriage, they resided together as husband and wife in his house as well as that of the respondent and later, shifted to the official quarter of the appellant at Ezhimala Naval Base where he was working. It is also seen that during their wedlock, the respondent gave birth to a child.
MA.831/13
2
- 4.According to the appellant, from the beginning of their marital life, the respondent was disobedient and adamant and she never cared to obey him or his parents. Appellant also alleged that being a Post Graduate, the respondent was having a superiority complex and she wanted the appellant to obey her and used to abuse him always. It is further alleged that she used to spread scandals about the appellant and treated him with cruelty and also threatened to commit suicide.
- 5.Another allegation is that in September, 2005, she went to her house for attending a PSC examination and returned only on 24.11.2005. Thereafter also, according to the appellant, the respondent continued as before and on one occasion tried to commit suicide. As a result, the appellant informed her parents and they took her to their house on 5.12.2005. Thereafter, they have not lived together. The appellant therefore, states that the respondent has treated him with cruelty and deserted him without any valid reason. It is with
MA.831/13
3
these allegations, the appellant filed OP.847/10 seeking a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
6.The respondent filed objections denying all the allegations and asserted that she was an obedient wife without any dislike, either towards the appellant or his mother. She also stated that she has treated the appellant and his mother and other relations with love and affection. The allegation that she attempted to commit suicide and that she had written suicide notes were denied by her. In so far as the case of the appellant that in September, 2005 she went home for attending an examination and returned only on 24.11.2005 is concerned, the respondent contended that after reaching her him, she was diagnosed to be pregnant and on medical advice, she had to take rest for two months. It is alleged that although the appellant was informed of her pregnancy, he did not bother even to visit her. She has further contended that on 5.12.2005, after medical check up at Green Garden Hospital, Cherthala, the appellant took her to her paternal house and
MA.831/13
4
left her there, promising to come on the next day. It is alleged that thereafter, he never enquired either about her or about the child.
- 7.It is also alleged that the reason for separation was the willful neglect on the part of the appellant and the respondent has asserted her readiness and willingness to have a peaceful matrimonial life with the appellant. She has also made allegations that despite her attempts to revive the relationship, the appellant was unwilling even to attend her phone calls.
- 8.On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, she herself was examined as RW1. In so far as the cruelty and desertion pleaded by the appellant is concerned, the court has dealt with the allegations of each of the parties and also the evidence that was adduced by both sides. A reading of the deposition of the parties would show that there were disagreements between the parties on various issues.
MA.831/13
5
However, the respondent is still desirous of continuing the marital relationship with the appellant.
9. Disagreements between the parties is not uncommon in marital relationships and in our view, they are not serious enough to be termed as cruelty to be understood as a ground for divorce to put an end to a marital relationship. In so far as Exts.A1 to A7 are concerned, A2 to A7 are the letters relied on by the appellant as the suicide notes allegedly written by the respondent. Apart from the fact that the respondent has denied having written any such note, even going by those letters, we are inclined to think that those letters, including Ext.A1, show the reflections of a distressed wife and cannot be taken as indicating any imminent threat of suicide. In any case, even if she has written such letters, fact remains that she has survived all these years thereafter without subsequent letter or even an attempt on her part. She is also bringing up the child with care and affection. Therefore, we are not
MA.831/13
6
inclined to think that Exts.A1 to A7 would improve the case of the appellant to set up a case of cruelty.
10.Coming to the ground of desertion pleaded by the appellant, the evidence would indicate that there was no desertion without any justifiable reason. Even otherwise, the contention of the appellant that on 24.12.2005, she was taken by her parents is not a fact which was established. Further, going by the case of the respondent, after medical check up, the appellant left her at her home promising to return on the next day to take her to his house. In the light of all these conflicting claims, we cannot say that any case of desertion has been established. Therefore, we are also of the view that the grounds of cruelty and desertion have not been made out and that the findings of the family court need only be sustained.
- 11.Counsel for the appellant relied on the Apex Court judgment
in **Naveen Kohli** v. **Neelu Kohli** [(2006) 4 SCC 558] to
MA.831/13
7
contend that in a case where the marriage is irretrievably broken down, divorce should be granted. However, as we have already stated, the grounds urged by the appellant was one of cruelty and desertion which have not been made out. In such a case, we are not inclined to think that the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant would improve his case in any manner.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the family court. The appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
Sd/P.D.RAJAN, Judge. kkb.14/6.
