Preetha P.V. v. Anoop V.V. (Mat.Appeal Nos. 694/2012, 77/2014, 388/2014)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1941** **Mat.Appeal.No.694 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 206/2009 DATED 11-09-2012 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD** ## **- APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER:** **PREETHA P.V. AGED 32 YEARS D/O.PRABHAVATHY AMMA,FROM PRAVIJA ,AZHIKOKONAM,VATTAVILA, CHENKAL VILLAGE,NEYYATTINKARA AND NOW RESIDING AT VAYACKAL ANUSHA,KANCHIYOORKONAM,KATTAKKADA JUNCTION,KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.SURESH SMT.N.P.ASHA SMT.M.JAYASREE SRI.G.SUDHEER** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **ANOOP V.V. S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR,VAYACKAL ANUSH,KANCHIYOORKONAM,KATTAKKADA JUNCTION,KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE-690001.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR** **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-022020, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.77/2014, Mat.Appeal.388/2014, THE COURT ON 09-03-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Mat.Appeal No.694/12 & conn.cases -:2:- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **Mat.Appeal.No.77 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 483/2007 DATED 08-10-2013 OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **ANOOP.V.V. S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT VAYAKKAL ANUSHA KANCHIYOORKONAM, KATTAKKADA.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 PREETHA P.V. D/O.PRABHAVATHY AMMA, RESIDING AT PRAVIJA, AZHIKONAM, VATTAVILA PO, CHENKAL VILLAGE NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, PIN-695 132** - **2 ANUJA D/O.ANOOP OF DO DO (MINOR)** - **3 AKSHARA D/O ANOOP OF DO DO (MINOR)** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.SURESH R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER** **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-02-2020, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal Nos.694/2012& 388/2014, THE COURT ON 09-03-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Mat.Appeal No.694/12 & conn.cases -:3:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **Mat.Appeal.No.388 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 483/2007 DATED 08-10-2013 OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **1 PREETHA P.V. DAUGHTER OF PRABHAVATHY AMMA, PRAVIJA AZHIKONAM, VATTAVILA P.O, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA.** **2 ANUJA AGED 16 YEARS** **DAUGHTER OF ANOOP, PRAVIJA AZHIKONAM, VATTAVILA P.O, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. IT IS RECORDED THAT THE 2ND APPELLANT HAS ATTAINED MAJORITY AS PER ORDER DATED 24.2.2020 IN IA NO.2/2020 IN MAT.APPEAL 388/2014.** **3 AKSHARA AGED 14 YEARS DAUGHTER OF ANOOP, PRAVIJA AZHIKONAM, VATTAVILA P.O, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. IT IS RECORDED THAT THE 3RD APPELLANT HAS ATTAINED MAJORITY AS PER ORDER DATED 24.2.2020 IN IA 4/2020 IN MAT.APPEAL 388/2014.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.SURESH SRI.G.SUDHEER** Mat.Appeal No.694/12 & conn.cases -:4:- ## **- RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:** **ANOOP V.V. SON OF VELAYUDHAN NAIR, VAYAKKAL ANUSHA, KANCHIYOORKONAM, KATTAKADA 695 001.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR** **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-02-2020, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.694/2012, Mat.Appeal.77/ 2014, THE COURT ON 09-03-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Mat.Appeal No.694/12 & conn.cases -:5:- ## **J U D G M E N T** **[ Mat.Appeal.694/2012, Mat.Appeal.77/2014, Mat.Appeal.388/2014 ]** Dated this the 9[th] day of March, 2020 ## _**Shaffique, J.**_ These appeals arise out of matrimonial issues between a couple and are heard and decided together. Mat.Appeal No. 694/2012 has been filed by the wife challenging judgment dated 11/9/2012 in O.P.No.206/2009. By the impugned judgment, the Family Court granted divorce on the ground of cruelty. Learned counsel for the appellant while impugning the aforesaid judgment contended that cruelty alleged by the petitioner had not been proved and therefore, the Family Court was not justified in granting divorce on the ground of cruelty. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner who supported the judgment of the Family Court. The facts involved in the case would disclose that the Mat.Appeal No.694/12 & conn.cases -:6:- couple got married on 6/2/1996 as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies and two children were born in the wedlock. The allegations raised by the petitioner is that though initially they had a very happy and cordial family life, after some time, his wife started showing dissatisfaction and hatred towards him. She was a person of suspicious nature and she doubted him in every aspect. He was a Counsellor by profession and several persons used to come and meet him. With reference to females who used to come for counselling, she suspected that they were having extra-marital relationship with him. Finally they started living in two separate rooms in the same building from 2005 onwards. Thereafter, she used to quarrel with him and his age old mother and she used filthy language against him in front of their children. She left the company of the petitioner after some time and she completely deserted him from January, 2007. She filed a a case for maintenance and also a criminal case u/s 498A of I.P.C. She even made publicity of the strained matrimonial relationship by calling press conferences and the same had appeared in newspapers as well. Mat.Appeal No.694/12 & conn.cases -:7:- 3. Respondent denied the allegations. According to her, petitioner was having illegal relationship with one Sreeja and according to her, she had become pregnant and the matter was settled by paying money. Even after marriage, he continued the extra-marital relationship. She made counter allegation against him stating that he was behaving in a cruel manner against the respondent. 4. Evidence in the case consisted of oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 and DW1 and DW2. Exts.A1 to A14 are the documents relied upon. The Family Court after considering the entire evidence found that allegation of cruelty had been proved. Family Court found that there were matrimonial issues between the couple. Exts.A1 to A3 evidences that respondent had given complaints against the petitioner and much publicity had been given through newspapers which amounted to maligning the reputation of the petitioner. Further, she had made serious allegations against the petitioner which remained unsubstantiated. 5. The counsel for the respondent/husband also placed Mat.Appeal No.694/12 & conn.cases -:8:- reliance on the judgment of this Court in _**Ushakumari C.V. v. P.Sukumaran**_ (2015 (3) KHC 845) wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that conducting a press conference against husband based on unfounded defamatory allegations amounts to cruelty. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that press conference was intended to ventilate her grievance that the petitioner with the connivance of the police was trying to evict her from the shared household forcefully. But it is relevant to note that this is a case in which the parties were residing separately since 2005 and they were on loggerheads. Even while they were living together, allegations were made against the petitioner regarding illicit relationship with other women which remains unsubstantiated. Taking into account the overall factual situation, it is rather evident that the petitioner had to suffer cruelty at the hands of his wife. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the marriage has been irretrievably broken and there is no chance for a reunion. The Family Court was therefore justified in granting divorce. In the absence of any perversity in the said judgment, we do not think it Mat.Appeal No.694/12 & conn.cases -:9:- necessary for us to interfere with the same. Mat.Appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed. 6. Mat.Appeal No.388/2014 has been filed by the wife and children dissatisfied with the grant of maintenance. They claimed past and future maintenance. Past maintenance was rejected and future maintenance was granted @ `2,000/- per month for the first petitioner and `3,000/- each for petitioners 2 and 3. However, the Family Court observed that maintenance to petitioners 2 and 3 shall only be until the date on which they attain majority. Further, in the Original petition, 1[st] petitioner had claimed return of gold ornaments or its equivalent money and the parental share given at the time of marriage and subsequently as well. The said claim had been rejected by the Family Court, against which the said appeal has been filed. The husband had challenged the award of maintenance granted in favour of wife and children by filing Mat.Appeal No. 77/2014. According to the wife, at the time of marriage, she was adorned with 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments. That apart, gold chain weighing 5 sovereigns, a bracelet weighing 5 sovereigns and a Mat.Appeal No.694/12 & conn.cases -:10:- gold ring weighing 1 sovereign were given to the bride groom. `25,000/- was given by her parents on the date of their first visit. She further contended that at the request of the respondent, petitioner's father gave `2,50,000/- in the year 1998 for starting a medical store. She contended that 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments were either sold or pledged by the respondent. On account of matrimonial issues, she had to remain separately and therefore she claimed return of the gold ornaments as well as money. She further contended that petitioner had a job and he was doing business and his monthly income was `25,000/-. Therefore she claimed monthly maintenance at the rate of `2,000/- for the first petitioner and `1,500/- each for petitioners 2 and 3. Respondent denied the allegation. He contended that he had given a gold chain weighing 10 sovereigns with a thali. He denied having received `25,000/- as alleged. 7. The Family Court after having considered the respective claims on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties concerned held that during cross-examination of PW1, she asserted that all the ornaments were entrusted to mother in law Mat.Appeal No.694/12 & conn.cases -:11:- after marriage and the respondent had failed to give back the same. But, while she was confronted with Ext.B8, a photograph, she admitted that those photographs were taken at the time of marriage of her brother and the two children in the photograph are their daughters. Ext.B1 is yet another photograph taken at the time of marriage of brother of the 1[st] petitioner on 5/12/2005. Ext.B3 are also photographs taken at the time of marriage of her brother. Petitioner while being examined as PW1 admitted that she was wearing her gold ornaments at the time of marriage of her brother. Ext.B7 is yet another photograph which would also prove the fact that petitioner was wearing several gold ornaments. In fact, the very case of the petitioner was that the gold ornaments adorned by her were entrusted to the mother in law on the first night of marriage itself and thereafter she has not seen the same. However, when she was confronted with the photographs which were taken several years after the marriage, in the year 2005, she was wearing sufficient quantity of gold ornaments. When the Family Court had placed reliance on such materials and found that the case set up by the petitioner was Mat.Appeal No.694/12 & conn.cases **==> picture [27 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** belied from her own evidence while being examined as PW1, there is no reason for us to take a different view. Family Court also did not believe her with reference to the claim for money. In the absence of any such evidence, the Family Court was justified in rejecting her claim. We do not find any good grounds to interfere with the said judgment and therefore the claim for gold ornaments and money was rightly rejected by the Family Court. 8. As far as maintenance is concerned, petitioners' claim maintenance @ `2,000/- for the first petitioner and `1,500/- each for petitioners 2 and 3. According to the petitioners, respondent was having a monthly income of `25,000/-. Respondent denied the said fact. According to him, he and his parents have some property, but the income from the same is only `6,000/-. 1[st] petitioner is taking home tuition and she earns an income of `3,000/- from all such sources. He also contended that there is a building in 12 cents of property belonging to the petitioner and she receives `2,000/- per month as rent. He denied having an income of `25,000/-. He is a labour in a shop and he gets only `75/- per day. Family Court found that there is no evidence to Mat.Appeal No.694/12 & conn.cases -:13:- prove that the petitioner has any income from the properties which she own, whereas she will have to expend some amount for educating the children. Taking into account all these facts, Family Court directed that the 1[st] petitioner is entitled for a monthly maintenance of `2,000/- and petitioners 2 and 3 @`3,000/- each till they attain the age of majority. The maintenance was payable from the date of petition i.e., 18/5/2007. As far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, at the relevant time, when the petition was filed, the children were aged 10 and 8 years respectively and there cannot be any dispute about the fact that they are entitled to be maintained by the father until they are given in marriage or gainfully employed. The husband has not adduced any evidence regarding income though he states that he was only an employee in a fancy shop. According to the wife, her husband was running the fancy shop which was in the name of his mother and therefore he is the sole owner of the shop. Apparently it is taking into consideration all these facts, that the Family Court had fixed the maintenance at the aforesaid rate. We do not think it necessary for us to Mat.Appeal No.694/12 & conn.cases -:14:- interfere with the said judgment. However, we make it clear that the daughters are entitled for maintenance until they are gainfully employed or married, whichever is earlier. To that extent alone, the judgment stands modified. In the result:- (i) Mat.Appeal Nos.694/2012 & 77/2014 are dismissed. (ii) Mat.Appeal No.388/2014 is partly allowed directing that the liability to pay maintenance for the daughters shall be until they are gainfully employed or until they are given in marriage, whichever is earlier. ## **Sd/-** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **JUDGE Sd/MARY JOSEPH** Rp True Copy **JUDGE** PS to Judge