IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, C.S. SUDHA, JJ.
Augustine @ Mervin Alexander S/o Late Alexander - Appellant
Versus
Josmy @ Geetha, D/o Jose – Respondent
MAT.Appeal No. 513 of 2021
Decided On : 04-08-2022
Divorce Act, 1869 - Section 10(x)- Dissolution of her marriage- Non-consummation of marriage – Ground of cruelty- Respondent had wilfully refused to consummate the marriage - Is the petitioner/wife, entitled to challenge the finding of the court below rejecting her prayer for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty as contemplated under Section 10(x) of the Act, without filing a Cross Objection.
Finding of the Court:
Act does not provide a definition for the same under Section 3 of the interpretation clause - whether the petitioner has succeeded in establishing that the respondent/ husband had wilfully refused to consummate the marriage - it is the obligation of the court and all concerned that the marriage status should, as far as possible, as long as possible and whenever possible, be maintained, but when the marriage is totally dead, in that event, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage which in fact has ceased to exist. In the instant case, the matrimonial bond between the parties seems to be beyond repair. The marriage between the parties is only in name. The marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct de facto. To keep the sham is obviously conducive to immorality and potentially more prejudicial to the public interest than a dissolution of the marriage bond.
Result: Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
C.S. Sudha, J.
1. This Mat. Appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 25/09/2021 in O.P.No.1060 of 2011 of the Family Court, Ettumanoor. The appellant is the respondent and the respondent herein, the petitioner in the proceedings before the Family Court, Ettumanoor. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the proceedings before the court below.
2. The petitioner/wife moved O.P.(Div.)No.334 of 2009 under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 (the Act), before the Family Court, Thodupuzha, seeking dissolution of her marriage to the respondent solemnized on 17/01/2009, on the ground of cruelty. The respondent/ husband challenged the jurisdiction of the court. The point was found against him. Hence the respondent challenged the same before this Court in Mat. Appeal No.303 of 2011. As per judgment dated 05/06/2011, this Court directed the Family Court, Thodupuzha, to return the original petition for presentation before the appropriate Family Court. Pursuant to the same, the original petition was presented before the Family Court, Ettumanoor, and it was re-numbered as O.P.No.1060 of 2011. Thereafter, the petition was amended to bring in an additional ground for dissolution of marriage, that is, non-consummation of marriage under Section 10(vii) of the Act.
3. On completion of pleadings, the parties went to trial. PW1 was examined on behalf of the petitioner/wife and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. The respondent/husband examined himself as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked on his side. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, the court below by judgment dated 07/12/2013 dismissed the petition. The petitioner/wife preferred an appeal before this Court as Mat. Appeal No.238 of 2014. This Court by judgment dated 29/12/2019 allowed the appeal and the judgment dated 07/12/2013 of the Family Court, Ettumanoor, was set aside. The matter was remanded and the petitioner/wife was given an opportunity to adduce further evidence to substantiate her case on both the grounds. The respondent was also given the liberty to adduce further evidence, if so desired by him.
4. After remand, PWs.2 and 3 were examined and Ext.A4 marked on the side of the petitioner/wife. No additional oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondent/husband. As per judgment dated 25/08/2021, the Family Court, Ettumanoor, allowed the petition and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 17/01/2009 has been dissolved by a decree of dissolution of marriage, by accepting the ground under Section 10(vii), that is, non-consummation of marriage. However, the court below rejected the allegation of cruelty raised by the petitioner under Section 10(x) of the Act. Aggrieved by the decree of dissolution of marriage granted under Section 10(vii), the respondent/ husband has come up in appeal.
5. In the appeal memorandum, it is alleged that the court below on an incorrect appreciation of the facts, evidence and law, has erroneously concluded that the marriage has not been consummated and so granted the petitioner/wife a decree of dissolution under Section 10(vii) of the Act. The court below has granted the decree relying solely on the evidence of PW2 and Ext.A4 which are insufficient to establish the ground of non-consummation of marriage, alleges the respondent/husband.
6. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are-
(i) Has the petitioner succeeded in establishing that the respondent had wilfully refused to consummate the marriage and as a result of the same, the marriage has not been consummated?
(ii) Does the finding of the court below granting dissolution of marriage on the ground under Section 10(vii) of the Act suffer from any infirmity?
(iii) Is the petitioner/wife, entitled to challenge the finding of the court below rejecting her prayer for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty as contemplated under Section 10(x) of the Act, without fi
Kuruvilla Varghese v. Sapnam Elizebeth Joseph [2007 (3) KHC 41]
Shaju P.L. v. Anitha [2014 (4) KHC 873]
State of Orissa v. Md.Illiyas [AIR 2006 SC 258]
Biraji@ Brijraji v. Surya Pratap [2021 (1) KHC 214]
Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College AIR 1987 SC 1242]
Deb Narayan Halder v. Smt.Anushree Halder AIR 2003 SC 3174]
State of U.P. v. Raghubir Singh [(1997) 3 SCC 775]
Narayana Pillai v. Kalliyani Amma: 1963 KLT 537;
Syed Mohammed v. Aziz: 1990 (2) KLT 952;
Mary Francis v. Kesavan: 1993 (1) KLT 4;
George v. State Bank of Travancore :2012 (2) KLT 935]
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [AIR 2006 SC 1675]
Apex Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511 : 2007 (2) KHC 231]
Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Harizunnisa Yasinkhan [(1981) 4 SCC 250]
Shoba Rani v. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105]
V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat [(1994) 1 SCC 337]
Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey [(2002) 2 SCC 73]
Gananth Pattnaik v. State of Orissa [(2002) 2 SCC 619]
Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta [(2002) 5 SCC 706]
Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi [(2001) 4 SCC 250]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.