The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of conducting an enquiry under Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure in cases where a party to the litigation may be incapable of understanding the proceedings, ensuring fair and lawful proceedings.

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

This appeal is preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of the Family Court, Attingal in O.P.No.1813 of 2013 dated 30.09.2015, whereby the Family Court has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage under Sec.13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Original Petition was initially filed before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram as O.P.No.1302 of 2012, later transferred to the Family Court, Attingal and re-numbered. Earlier, the Family Court had dismissed the petition filed by the appellant as per its judgment dated 31.10.2013, which was subjected to appeal before this Court in Mat. Appeal No.482 of 2014 and, by judgment dated 28.05.2015 it was remitted back to the Family Court for fresh disposal after providing sufficient opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence.

2. The facts required for the disposal of this Appeal are as follows:

3. The appellant and 1st respondent are husband and wife and they got married as per the custom and rituals prevailing in Hindu religion and Nair caste, at "Sree Panimoola Bhagavathy Temple", Pothencode on 23.10.1987. In the marital wedlock, a daughter and son were born during October, 2004 and April, 2009 respectively. The appellant was in the service of the Defence Department, Government of India as Clerk (Control) in the Civil Wing of Indian Army and retired from service on 31.07.1994.

4. It is the case of the appellant that he has looked after and maintained his wife and children with utmost love and responsibility, giving them maximum care and protection with special care and interest on the education of his children. While the appellant was in service, he had taken his wife and children along with him in all his places of avocation and they resided together and thereupon he extended maximum care and protection to the respondent and children. It is also the case of the appellant that, the appellant and the respondent led a happy marital life along with the children born in the wedlock.

5. It is the contention of the appellant that, after retirement from service, his income was reduced and at the same time the family expenses like food, clothing, education of children etc. have multiplied. Therefore, the appellant was compelled to strive hard to get both ends met, and apart from the temporary job he obtained in the Army Welfare Department as special Clerk of Amalgamated Funds, he started a small business also at his native place, in order to tide over the financial situations. But, unfortunately, the Respondent could not adjust with the income of the appellant. The Respondent had failed to give support to the appellant in his fervent endeavours to secure more money for the well-being of the family. Respondent was in the habit of misusing money and also was in the habit of spending money lavishly, which has affected the family budget. Respondent also wanted to share all family secrets with outsiders, so as to ridicule the appellant. Respondent started to disobey the appellant and also opted her own choices beyond the limits of family restraints. In short, the Respondent has cheated the appellant in all respects. The acts, approaches and attitude of the Respondent as a whole has put the appellant in severe mental stress and agony. Since the appellant was very much anxious about future of the children and also worried about a way out to complete the education of the children, he has shown a blind eye towards the wrong doings of the Respondent and tried his level best to pull on.

6. It is the further contention of the appellant that, because of the Respondent's misdeeds and misappropriation of money, the business of the appellant collapsed and thereby a source of income was also lost. The appellant was relieved from the temporary job also and he had to depend upon his pension alone. Respondent's cruel behaviour and defamatory comments were to such an extent that the appellant could not continue under the same roo