Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.M. SHAFFIQUE AND K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
SANOJ PAREETHU - APPELLANT
Versus
NIMY. P.Y – RESPONDENT
Mat.Appeal Nos.366 & 367 of 2013
Decided On : 08-02-2017
Divorce - Muslim Marriages - Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 - Section 2 - Neglect, cruelty, and maintenance - [DIVORCE] - [MUSLIM MARRIAGES] - [Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, Section 2(ii), (viii), (ix)] - The court discussed the grounds for decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, focusing on neglect, cruelty, and maintenance. It interpreted the nature of cruelty required under sub-clauses (a) to (f) of Section 2(viii) and considered the evidence to grant a decree for divorce based on neglect and cruelty. The court also addressed the maintenance claim and the value of articles, ultimately dismissing the appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed against a judgment allowing maintenance and granting a divorce under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. The wife alleged neglect, cruelty, and sought maintenance, while the husband denied the allegations and claimed that the wife and her family members were responsible for the separation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence supported the wife's claims of neglect and cruelty, leading to the grant of a divorce. It also upheld the maintenance order and rejected the claims for compensation and value of articles.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the grounds for divorce under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, specifically focusing on neglect and cruelty, as well as the maintenance claim and the value of articles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of neglect and cruelty to grant a divorce under the Act, emphasizing the nature of cruelty required under the relevant provisions. It also considered the evidence related to maintenance and the value of articles to make its decisions.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the judgment granting maintenance and divorce, and rejecting the claims for compensation and value of articles.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with appropriate references:
The appeals relate to a judgment that granted divorce and maintenance under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, primarily on grounds of neglect and cruelty by the husband (!) (!) .
The respondent (wife) alleged that the husband did not show affection, failed to communicate, and did not lead a normal marital life, which caused her emotional distress and neglect, especially during pregnancy and after childbirth (!) (!) .
The husband argued that he was committed and responsible, citing his employment obligations and efforts during pregnancy, and denied neglect or cruelty. He also claimed that the financial contributions made by the wife’s family were in her name and that he had given gold ornaments and a monetary amount, which he was willing to return if the ornaments were returned (!) (!) .
The court found sufficient evidence supporting claims of neglect and cruelty, leading to the conclusion that the marital relationship had irretrievably broken down, justifying a decree of divorce (!) (!) .
The court also considered the grounds for divorce under the relevant provisions, especially focusing on neglect (Section 2(ii)) and cruelty (Section 2(viii)), and determined that the appellant's conduct amounted to cruelty and neglect, warranting dissolution of the marriage (!) (!) .
Regarding maintenance, the court ordered the husband to pay Rs. 5,000 per month each to the wife and child, but rejected claims for past maintenance and compensation for household articles and valuables (!) (!) .
The court examined the financial details of the husband, establishing that he earned more than Rs. 70,000 per month, and found that he had not paid interim maintenance promptly, which influenced the maintenance order (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the appeal against the divorce decree, affirming the findings that the marriage had broken down due to neglect and cruelty, and upheld the maintenance order (!) (!) (!) .
Claims for compensation and return of valuables, including the value of articles and money given at marriage, were rejected or reduced based on the evidence, with the court emphasizing the husband's failure to substantiate his claims of deposit or return of valuables (!) (!) .
Overall, the court dismissed both appeals, maintaining the original judgments for divorce and maintenance, and clarified that the evidence supported the grounds for dissolution under the applicable law (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on this case.
Shaffique, J.
These two appeals are filed against the common judgment dated 5/2/2013 in OP Nos.925/2008 and 926/2008. The common respondent in the original petitions is the appellant herein. OP No.925/08 against which MA No.367/13 has been filed, was filed by the minor son represented by mother and the wife of the appellant seeking for past and future maintenance which was allowed by the Family Court in part directing grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/- each per month to the respondents herein from the date of original petition. OP No.926/2008 against which MA No.366/13 has been filed is filed by the respondent herein seeking for a divorce under Section 2 of the Dissolution of the Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, which was allowed by the Court below and also claiming damages of Rs. 10 lakhs and return of money paid as value of articles to the tune of Rs. 2,96,000/- of which Court below allowed Rs. 2 lakhs only.
2. For easy reference, parties are referred to as shown in the memorandum of appeal. The facts in MA No.366/13 are as under:-
The parties are Muslim by religion. Appellant married the respondent on 14/5/2006. The allegation raised by the respondent is that the appellant did not show any liking to her, he did not speak to her and they were not leading a normal sexual life as husband and wife. At the time of marriage, the respondent was working as a tutor in the Federal Institute of Science and Technology and she discontinued the employment. The respondent requested the appellant to permit her to join for a course for getting an employment. She was forced to secure an employment since the appellant was not caring for her nor spending any time with her. The respondent narrates the fact that the appellant was not taking any interest in the household affairs. She conceived a child and during earlier days of pregnancy, the appellant did not help her. In December, 2006, she came to her house. The appellant did not make any enquiries even thereafter nor did he even telephone her or visited her. It appeared to the respondent that the appellant was not at all interested in her or her family members and was not inviting her to live with him. It is also contended that even at the time when there was a problem with the growth of the child, no action was taken by the appellant in order to give proper medication or nursing. She was taken to Madras after much persuasion, but after four days, she was forced to come back. The respondent felt like being abandoned. In the meantime, appellant got a better employment in Bangalore and started living with a cousin who had divorced his wife. Even while the respondent was at hospital, the appellant did not care to stay along with her nor console her. She delivered a child and he reached the hospital only after delivery and did not show any interest to spend time with the respondent or the child. The respondent thereafter narrates various incidents which according to the respondent was that the appellant was ignoring her and her family members and ultimately when the respondent's father and her uncle met the appellant in Bangalore during the last week of January, 2008, he said that he will not take the respondent and he is not intending to have a divorce. Though several steps were taken for conciliation, he continued the disinterested attitude towards the respondent. The appellant had sent a reply to a letter making allegations against the respondent. When the parents of the respondent went to Jama Ath Office where the appellant and his relatives were present, they openly declared that he did not want the respondent and the appellant is willing to give talaq if the child is given to him. Respondent submits that the above bargaining tendency was made to harass her and her family members. Respondent submits that the aforesaid action amounts to cruelty and they were separated for about two years and seeks for dissolution of marriage. Respondent also sought for compensation of Rs. 10 lak
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
