SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

V.V. Veena vs V.V. Veena on 10 January, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 20TH POUSHA, 1941

Mat.Appeal.No.611 OF 2013

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP No. 426/2011 DATED 25-01-2013 OF FAMILY
COURT, KANNUR

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

V.V. VEENA
AGED 32 YEARS
THEKKUMBADAN HOUSE, KALLIASSERY SOUTH, ANCHAMPEEDIKA
POST, KALLIASSERY AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR
DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.P.K.SUBHASH

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

K.V. VINODKUMAR
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O E.RAGHAVAN, KADANMMAR HOUSE, MORAZHA POST,
MORAZHA AMSOM DESOM, ANCHAMPEEDIKA POST, TALIPARAMBA
TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 001.

R1 BY ADV. SMT.N.SHAMNA

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.01.2020, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.586/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal.No.611586 OF 2013 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 20TH POUSHA, 1941

Mat.Appeal.No.586 OF 2013

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP No.421/2011 DATED 25-01-2013 OF
FAMILY COURT, KANNUR

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

V.V.VEENA
AGED 32 YEARS, THEKKUMBADAN HOUSE, KALLIASSERY
SOUTH, ANCHAMPEEDIKA POST, KALLIASSERY AMSOM,
DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.P.K.SUBHASH

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

K.V.VINODKUMAR
S/O.E.RAGHAVAN,AGED 37 YEARS, KADANMMAR HOUSE,
MORAZHA POST, MORAZHA AMSOM, DESOM, ANCHAMPEEDIKA
POST, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 001.

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.01.2020, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.611/2013, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal.No.611586 OF 2013 3

JUDGMENT

[ Mat.Appeal.611/2013, Mat.Appeal.586/2013 ]

Dated this the 10th day of January 2020
A.M.SHAFFIQUE,J

These two appeals arise out of matrimonial issues between

a couple. O.P No.421 of 2011 has been filed by the wife seeking

divorce on the ground of cruelty. O.P No.426 of 2011 was filed

by the husband seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

Maintenance case was also filed by the wife as M.C No.89 of

2011. All these cases were jointly tried and resulted in judgment

dated 25.01.2013. While allowing the petition for Restitution of

Conjugal Rights, the petition for divorce was dismissed by the

Family Court against which these appeals have been preferred

by the wife.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the

wife had taken a specific contention regarding cruelty but the

Family Court had failed to consider the same in the proper

perspective. That apart, the marriage is irretrievably broken
Mat.Appeal.No.611586 OF 2013 4

insofar as they have been separated since 2007 and there is no

chance for re-union. Even before this Court, there is no

appearance on behalf of the wife.

3. Petitioner and respondent got married on 19.5.1996.

Two children were born in the wedlock. They got separated on

22.07.2007. The contention urged by the petitioner/wife was

that after the marriage, her husband lost his job and started

idling. There was no peace in the house as he used to quarrel

with them quite often. According to her, when his grandmother

died, though the petitioner wanted to attend the cremation, he

did not permit her to go for cremation rituals. She was assaulted

and she along with children were locked in the room. She had to

contact his parents and on the instructions of a social worker in

the locality, they were released. Subsequently, there was a

mediation between the parties and they started residing in a

rented house. However, petitioner and children were ill treated .

Ultimately they were ousted from the house on 22.07.2007. She

was forced to take shelter in her parental house along with the

children and thereafter she filed the petition for maintenance.
Mat.Appeal.No.611586 OF 2013 5

Respondent denied the allegations. According to him, he had

lost his employment due to the harassment and cruelty by the

petitioner and her parents. He had availed a loan from the Bank,

with which his wife started a Beauty Parlour under the name

‘Chaithanya’. She is earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month

from the aforesaid business and after having started the Beauty

Parlour, she is not willing to continue the marital relationship.

Hence he sought for dismissal of divorce petition and on the

very same ground he sought for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

4. Evidence in the case consists of oral testimony of

PW1 and RW1. Exts.A1 and B1 series were the documents relied

on. Family Court after considering the evidence found that there

is no material to prove cruelty and therefore dismissed the

petition for divorce and allowed the petition for Restitution of

Conjugal Rights.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and having perused the records, we are of the view that the

marriage has been irretrievably broken. Parties got separated in

the year 2007 and there is no chance for re-union. For the last
Mat.Appeal.No.611586 OF 2013 6

12 years, there was no relation ship between them. The children

are with the mother and no attempt had been made for getting

custody as well. Perusal of the evidence in the case and the

pleadings of the petitioner/wife and the evidence would show

that she had specifically spoken about the incidents which have

occurred in their marital life. According to her, she and her

children were ill-treated as the petitioner was not having any job

and he was merely idling. The attitude of the respondent

prompted her to start the Beauty Parlour and even after starting

the Beauty parlour, she and the children were ousted from the

place where they were living together. These facts apparently

amounts to mental cruelty. Husband has the duty to take care of

his wife and children. If he fails to do so, it will amount to

severe sufferings for the family. This is a case in which the

husband had failed to take care of his wife and children and she

was forced to start a business of her own.

6. Under the said circumstances, when the wife made a

complaint that she was being ill-treated by her husband, there is

no reason to discard the said evidence. Therefore, having taken
Mat.Appeal.No.611586 OF 2013 7

into consideration the evidence of PW1, and further fact that the

marriage has been irretrievably broken, we are of the view that

the appeal ought to be allowed. Accordingly, these appeals are

allowed as under.

7. The judgment in O.P No.421 of 2011 and 426 of 2011

are set aside. O.P No.421/2011 is allowed and the marriage

between the petitioner and respondent shall stand dissolved by

decree of divorce. O.P No.426 of 2011 is dismissed. No order as

to cost.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH

JUDGE

JJ

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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