SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sajeev P.R. vs Sajeev P.R. on 6 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

WEDNESDAY,THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 17TH MAGHA, 1940

Mat.Appeal.No. 23 of 2010

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 203/2009 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT
ETTUMANOOR DATED 23-09-2009(COMMON JUDGMENT IN OP.1154/2008
203/2009)

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 SAJEEV P.R., AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O.RAMESAN, VISHNU NIVAS, EDAYAZHAMKARA, VECHOOR
VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK FROM SIVASAILAM HOUSE,
PALLIPRATHUSSERRY KARA, VAIKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

2 SHALI AGED 42 YEARS,S/O.GOWRI
PUTHENVELI HOUSE, POTTIKKAVALA, CHERUVARANAM KARA,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANADHAN

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

SREELATHA C.K., 34 YEARS, D/O KUTTAPPAN,
SIVASAILAM HOUSE, PALLIPRATHUSSERRY KARA, VAIKOM
VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM

BY ADVS.
SRI.ABHILASH J
SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.02.2019,
ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.25/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2
Mat.A.Nos.23 25/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

WEDNESDAY,THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 17TH MAGHA, 1940

Mat.Appeal.No. 25 of 2010

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 1154/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM
AT ETTUMANOOR DATED 23-09-2009(COMMON JUDGMENT IN OP.1154/2008
203/2009)

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

SAJEEV P.R., AGED 36 YEARS,S/O RAMESAN,
VISHNU NIVAS, EDAYAZHAMKARA, VECHOOR VILLAGE,,
VAIKOM TALUK FROM SIVASAILAM HOUSE,,
PALLIPRATHUSSERRY KARA, VAIKOM VILALGE, KOTTAYAM.

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

SREELATHA C.K., 34 YEARS, D/O KUTTAPPAN,
SIVASAILAM HOUSE, PALLIPRATHUSSERRY KARA, VAIKOM
VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

BY ADVS.
SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE
SRI.J.ABHILASH

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.02.2019,
ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.23/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
Mat.A.Nos.23 25/2010

JUDGMENT

SHAFFIQUE, J

These two appeals arise from a common judgment dated

23.9.2009 in O.P.No.203/2009 1154/2008 of the Family Court,

Kottayam at Ettumanoor. O.P.No.1154/2008 has been filed by the

petitioner/husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

O.P.No.203/2009 has been filed by the wife for return of 15 sovereigns

of gold ornaments or its value of Rs.1,50,000/- and an amount of

Rs.50,000/-. Divorce is rejected and a decree is passed in favour of

the wife, for return of gold ornaments and money.

2. The short facts of the case are as under and the parties are

described as shown in O.P.No.1154/2008 unless otherwise stated.

The petitioner and the respondent got married on 28.4.1997 as per

Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. It is the case of the petitioner

that, immediately after the marriage they started living in a rented

house. But the behaviour of the respondent was very cruel towards

him. She made his matrimonial life miserable. He alleged that he was

conducting a beauty parlour at vaikom. He purchased certain items of

property in which the respondent’s name was also included as a joint

owner. He alleged that she made an attempt to kill him on

24.12.2002 with a knife. She also started filing cases against him.
4
Mat.A.Nos.23 25/2010

The specific allegation made by the appellant/petitioner was that the

respondent with the help of some gundas sent him out of his own

house and he is presently residing in a rented house. She filed false

complaint to the police as well as Women Cell and also filed petition

under the Domestic Violence Act. She also did not allow him to

continue his beauty parlour, whereas she is conducting a textiles in the

name ‘Amma Enterprises’.

3. The respondent filed objections inter alia stating that the

couple were having intimacy even prior to the marriage. However, she

was given Rs.50,000/- and 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments as her

share and the petitioner had taken away 15 sovereigns of gold

ornaments. She denied that she had quarrelled with him and that she

had attempted to kill him and he was thrown out of his house.

According to her, she was ready and willing to live with the petitioner.

4. The petitioner filed objection stating that he has not

received any gold nor has he appropriated any amount. Before the

Family Court common evidence was taken. The petitioner was

examined as PW1 and he relied upon Exts.A1 to A5. The respondent

was examined as RW1. The Family Court after having appreciated the

materials placed on record, dismissed the petition filed by the husband

for divorce, however granted a decree in O.P.NO.203/2009 in favour of

the respondent/wife.

5

Mat.A.Nos.23 25/2010

5. With reference to the ground taken in the divorce petition,

the petitioner had clearly stated that his wife/respondent used to

make false allegations against him of having illicit relationship with

other women and has also filed false complaint before the Magistrate’s

Court. Evidence in the case consists of Ext.A2 complaint filed by the

wife before the Sub Inspector of Police Women Cell, Kottayam against

the petitioner on 13.12.2007. Allegation was that the petitioner was

attempting to sell property and was intending to live with another

women. It is urged by the petitioner that on one occasion she tried to

kill him and thereafter with the help of ‘gundas’ he was thrown out of

his house. False allegations are made against him alleging illicit

relationship with other women. The petitioner in his evidence has

categorically stated the aforesaid facts.

6. The respondent in her evidence though had denied

allegations raised by the petitioner, admits the fact that the petitioner

is not living with the respondent. Petitioner’s allegation that he was

thrown out of the business and his residence is a fact which cannot be

denied at this point of time as he is residing separately from the

respondent. The marriage between the parties has also broken

irretrievably and there is no chance for a re-union. It is evident that

unsubstantiated evidence has been made by the wife against the

husband of him having illicit relationship and ultimately he is thrown
6
Mat.A.Nos.23 25/2010

out of his house. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that

this is a fit case in which divorce ought to have been granted by the

Family Court. The Family Court proceeded on the basis that allegations

in the complaint are not substantiated. But the facts speaks for itself.

This is a clear case of the husband being thrown out and remaining

away from his house on account of cruelty. That apart, when

allegations are made by the wife against her husband alleging illicit

relationship, which is unsubstantiated, that itself amounts to mental

cruelty. Hence we are of the view that a decree for divorce has to be

granted in favour of the petitioner.

7. As far as the claim made by the wife for return of gold

ornaments and money is concerned, though the respondent/husband

denied the aforesaid facts, the Family Court have appreciated the

evidence and found that there is every chance for using the gold and

money by the husband and therefore granted a decree for the same.

Taking into account the fact that the marriage has already been

broken and the Family Court had believed the version of the wife, it is

only appropriate to sustain the decree directing return of gold

ornaments and money.

In the result, Mat.A.No.25/2010 is allowed. The judgment in

O.P.No.1154/2008 is set aside and the original petition is allowed as

under:

7

Mat.A.Nos.23 25/2010

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent shall stand

dissolved by a decree for divorce.

Mat.A.No.23/2010 is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

A.M.BABU
kp True copy JUDGE
P.A. To Judge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation