IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that mental cruelty, as defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, can justify the dissolution of marriage when one party experiences persistent emotional distress due to the other's abusive behavior.

JUDGMENT :

P.M. MANOJ, J.

1. The above Mat. Appeal is preferred by the wife challenging the judgment dated 14.07.2023 in O.P.No. 1385/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Original Petition was preferred by the wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The Original Petition was dismissed holding that the appellant had failed to prove matrimonial cruelty.

2. A perusal of the records disclosed that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 29.01.1997. Two children were born in the wedlock. At the time of marriage, the respondent was working as an employee at Vijayalakshmi Cashews, Tamil Nadu.

3. The wife contended that the respondent was a spendthrift and never looked after her and her two children. It was contended that serious differences of opinion occurred between the spouses after the wife had acquired B.Tech. Degree and secured a job in the KSEBL. The husband had only basic qualifications and his job status was inferior to that of his wife. This led to the respondent acquiring an inferiority complex. He started physically and mentally abusing his wife alleging that she was having ‘chovva dosham’, meaning thereby that she had a problem with astrological signs and by marrying her, he has acquired bad luck. When it became difficult for her to sustain the relationship, she approached the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

4. The respondent appeared before the Family court and denied the entire allegations. He denied that he had treated the wife or the children with cruelty. He contended that he had not received any gold ornaments. He stated that false allegations are being levelled after numerous years solely to set up a false case against him. The wife has filed M.C.No. 260 of 2016 seeking maintenance which was settled in the Adalat. The respondent had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6000/- towards maintenance. However, the appellant failed to provide the Account Number so as to enable him to deposit the amount. He stated that at the time of marriage and still, he was employed in Tamil Nadu and sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. The evidence adduced before the Family Court consisted of the oral evidence of the appellant and her daughter who were examined as PW1 and PW2. On their side, Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. The respondent gave evidence as RW1 and his brother-in-law was examined as RW2.

6. The Family Court, after evaluating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the version of the appellant as well as her daughter cannot be believed as they failed to provide specific instances and dates as regards the cruelty alleged against the respondent.

7. We have heard Sri. Mathew Kuriakose, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Arun Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record as well as the law on the point in its correct perspective. It is urged that the Family Court committed a grave error in disbelieving the oral evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2 for their failure to provide specific instances. It is also contended that the Family Court erred in disbelieving the version of the appellant with respect to the misappropriation of gold for the mere reason that the appellant did not file any petition to recover the gold ornaments or its value. According to the learned counsel, the evidence tendered by the appellant and her daughter together with the photographs would convincingly show that the appellant had adorned 30 sovereigns at the time of marriage.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that there was no serious dispute between the appellant and the respondent. It is only because of her superiority complex being a government employee and the respondent being a low-paid employee, that she i