IMPORTANT POINTS
The reunion of spouses for a temporary period during the pendency of the proceeding for divorce pursuant to settlement of matrimonial issues will not defeat the claim for dissolution of marriage on the ground of alleged condonation of cruelty nor will it bar continuance of the proceeding when their relationship is again estranged. The alleged condonation can put an end to the proceeding only when the complaining spouse has led a normal and intimate life uninfluenced by the conduct of the offending spouse, in such a manner that the wronged spouse has pardoned and restored the offending spouse to the original status. Nothing of that sort happened in this case. The reunion lasted only for a temporary period and the spouses failed to carry on a normal and harmonious life. Therefore, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the respondent for dismissal of the original petition on the ground of alleged condonation of cruelty is liable only to be refused.

JUDGMENT :

T.V.ANILKUMAR J.

The husband, who filed O.P. No.84/2013 before the Family Court, Palakkad, for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertion and cruelty, is in appeal.

2. The original petition was earlier filed in the Family Court, Ernakulam and numbered as O.P. No.143/2009 before it was transferred to the Family Court, Palakkad. The court below dismissed the original petition holding that appellant/husband failed to prove the grounds of dissolution taken under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(for short 'the HM Act').

3. The respondent/wife is the own cousin of appellant and their marriage was solemnized on 22.08.2004. Appellant married her while she was studying for B.Sc. Botany in Chittur Government Arts and Science College, Palakkad. After the marriage, a male child by name 'Kannan' was born to the spouses.

4. The allegation of the appellant against the respondent is that, after 1½ months since the date of their marriage, his life with her became intolerable and miserable. It is alleged that she is of such a peculiar type of woman that she used to pick up quarrels with him and other inmates of the matrimonial house for no good reasons and further she is so short tempered that she used to break plates, glasses and household utensils by throwing them away during quarrels. It was usual for her to leave for her parental home in Palakkad after picking up quarrel and many a time appellant was persuaded to follow her to such a long place from Ernakulam, even at odd night hours. Once she broke her thali chain and threw it at his face. She often challenged appellant to divorce him and claimed that she would well be taken care of by her relatives in Palakkad and Coimbatore. She refused to get up in usual hours of morning nor was she prepared to make tea or food for him. She led an easy going life, without showing any loyalty and love for appellant and failed to discharge her matrimonial duties. She manhandled appellant more than once and even threatened to kill him. After the spouses shifted to a flat in another part of Ernakulam Town also, her character did not improve and his life with her became all the more intolerable. She developed unholy relationship with one 'Vadivelu', a close relative of her, when she used to be in Coimbatore without appellant's consent. Ultimately in the month of December, 2008, she deserted him and left for Palakkad taking away the child and all her belongings. On these allegations, appellant sought dissolution of marriage.

5. The respondent denied allegations of cruelty and desertion and claimed that appellant was taking advantage of his own wrong. According to her, he is a drunkard, who came home with a group of friends in drunken state and harassed her both physically and mentally demanding to raise more gold and cash from her mother. He was interested only in her assets and did not love nor maintain her and child. In fact, she had been tolerating his cruel acts all the years since their marriage.

6. The court below examined appellant as PW1 and three independent witnesses as PWs 2 to 4 on his side and admitted Exts.A1 and A2 in evidence. Respondent was examined as RW.1 and on her side, no documents were admitted in evidence.

7. After hearing both sides, the court below was not pleased to order dissolution of marriage, since according to it, the allegations of cruelty as well as desertion could not be established by appellant. It was said that evidence of PW1 was interested and was not corroborated by direct eye witnesses to alleged cruelties. It was observed that allegations of cruelty were vague and general and did not contain any material particulars. Testimonies of PWs 2 to 4 were rejected holding that their knowledge of cruelty was only from hearsay sources. It was commented that appellant chose to seek dissolution of marriage taking advantage of his own wrong.

8. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

9. It was contended on behalf of