Point of Law : Mere quarrels, ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial relationships or casual outburst of some emotional feelings cannot be treated as cruelties warranting divorce.

JUDGMENT :

Sophy Thomas, J.

A husband, who lost his case for divorce, is before us.

2. Brief facts necessary for the appeal could be stated as follows:-

The husband filed OP (Div) No.620 of 2018 before the Family Court, Alappuzha, under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, for dissolving his marriage with the respondent, on the ground of matrimonial cruelties. He married the respondent on 09.02.2009 as per Christian rites and custom and three girl children were born in their lawful wedlock. Both of them were employed in Saudi Arabia, and their marital relationship was very smooth. But later, she developed some behavioral abnormalities, and she picked up quarrel with him for no reason, alleging illicit relationship with other women. She failed to perform her duties and responsibilities as a wife and mother. On 14.05.2018, she slapped on his face and on 16.05.2018 she pointed a knife at him and threatened him with death. He was assaulted and humiliated in front of his children and public, and she made his close-relatives to turn against him. She compelled him to transfer the properties purchased by him into her name. Because of the indifferent, abusive and violent behavior of the respondent, he became mentally stressed and physically ill. According to him, their marital relationship was irretrievably broken and so he wanted a decree of divorce.

3. The respondent-wife vehemently opposed his petition. According to her, the appellant was concocting reasons to keep himself away from his wife and children. She was never cruel to the husband and she never assaulted or threatened him. The appellant had no financial discipline and the respondent herself purchased properties and constructed the house. She needs her husband, and her children their father.

4. After formulating necessary issues by the Family Court, the parties went on trial. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 & A2 were marked from the side of the appellant. RWs1 to 7 were examined and Exts. B1 to B7 were marked from the side of the respondent. The Family Court, on analysing the facts and evidence, found that the appellant failed to prove the allegations of cruelty against the respondent so as to dissolve their marriage, and hence the OP was dismissed, against which, the appellant has come up with this appeal.

5. We are called upon for a re-appraisal of the facts and evidence to find out whether any interference is called for in the impugned judgment and decree.

6. Admittedly, the appellant married the respondent on 09.02.2009 at St. Joseph’s Church, Kayalpuram. Both of them were employed in Saudi Arabia and three girl children were born in their lawful wedlock. The appellant also is admitting the fact that they were leading a very cordial and smooth marital relationship till 2018. He is alleging that thereafter the respondent developed some behavioural abnormalities, and she often picked up quarrel with him for no reason. If so, as a responsible husband, he was bound to know the reason for such behavioural changes of his wife, whether it be physical, mental or psychological. He has no case that he ever took his wife to a psychologist or psychiatrist to know the reason for her behavioural abnormalities.

7. The respondent wife deposed that she was working as a Nurse in Delhi and at that time, the appellant was working there in a Jewellery and they fell in love and decided to marry. The appellant was not ready even to admit the pre-marital affair between them, though his own mother RW2 and his own close-relative RW3 admitted that fact before Court. According to respondent, her marital life with the appellant was so smooth till 2018 and thereafter, he was trying to avoid her and her children. The mother and close-relatives of the appellant categorically deposed before Court that in the year 2017, the appellant developed some illicit intimacy with a lady named Anjali and thereafter, he wanted to avoid his wife, children and even his own mother. The case of the appellant is that t