IMPORTANT POINTS
The withdrawal of the wife from the society of the husband, on the demand of separate residence to avoid the members of the husband's family is an act of cruelty.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. DIAS, J.

1. The appellant had filed O.P.No.78/2011 before the Family Court, Ernakulam, seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13 (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to dissolve his marriage with the respondent in this appeal.

2. The compendious facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: The appellant was married to the respondent on 24.10.2004. After the engagement ceremony, the respondent desired to withdraw from the alliance. The respondent was moody on the wedding day. Right from the initial days of marriage, the respondent was not cordial. She stayed aloof from the appellant and his parents. The respondent was not interested in having physical relationship. She gave lame excuses and avoided the appellant. Within six months after the marriage, the respondent got transferred to the Desom Branch of the Bank. The Branch was hardly 150 meters from the appellant's residence. The respondent used to leave home by 8.45 a.m. and return by 9.00 p.m. After returning from work, she used to sit idle till 11 p.m. As the couple was issueless, even after two years of marriage, they consulted a Gynecologist. The respondent refused treatment, apprehending financial loss, and potential failure of the treatment. In November 2009, the appellant appraised the respondent's parents about the strain in their relationship. The respondent accused the appellant of interfering in her work. The respondent's father advised her to stay at the appellant’s place like a paying guest. The respondent yelled at the appellant in the presence of her parents, which caused mental agony and anguish to the appellant. From March 2010, the respondent stopped taking food from the marital home. On 23.3.2010, the respondent’s brother and cousin brother went to the matrimonial home and took the respondent and her belongings and left. A few days before the incident, the respondent had removed all her gold ornaments from the bank locker at SBT, Aluva. The respondent ignored the appellant in public places. The respondent informed the appellant that she did not desire to continue with the marriage. The respondent's ruthless attitude has caused severe mental, physical, emotional, and traumatic problems to the appellant. The marriage is irretrievably broken with no chance of a rapprochement. The appellant had issued a lawyer notice to the respondent seeking to dissolve their marriage on mutual consent, but the respondent has not bothered to send a reply. The respondent has treated the appellant with matrimonial cruelty. Hence the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce.

3. The respondent refuted the allegations in the original petition. She filed a written objection, inter alia, contending as follows: After the engagement ceremony, the appellant made sarcastic comments about the respondent’s physical appearance. He wanted her to meet a cosmetic expert of his choice, which disappointed her. The appellant is a selfish person. He insisted the respondent to take leave for trivial reasons; if not, he used to abuse her in vituperative language. The respondent maintained utmost love and affection for the appellant, but he wanted her to act like a Hollywood porn star during coitus, which was not palatable to her. The appellant was only interested in the respondent's monetary benefits, and his greediness was horrible. He was not fit enough to satisfy the biological needs of the respondent. Being a responsible Bank Officer, she was bound to complete her work within a time frame, which compelled her to work after office hours. The respondent’s life in the marital home was miserable. The appellant and his family members exerted pressure on the respondent to do the household chores. She was not given any consideration in the matrimonial home. She begged to the appellant to shift from his parental home to a rented house, but he was not ready. The appellant's mother used to question her in a suspicious way, causing embarrassment to her. The appellant's paren