IMPORTANT POINT
The court found that general allegations of cruelty without specific evidence do not justify the dissolution of marriage, emphasizing the need for substantial proof of mental or physical cruelty.

JUDGMENT :

G. Girish, J.

Unsuccessful of getting a decree of dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion, from the Family Court, Ernakulam, the appellant is here before this Court with this Mat.Appeal.

2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was on 17.04.1994, and they were blessed with a male child in that wedlock on 03.11.1997. The appellant would allege that within a short period after marriage, the respondent started to abuse and insult him without any reason, and insisted to abandon his parents and to shift residence to an independent house. The respondent, it is alleged, was not ready and willing to perform her marital obligations as a dutiful wife and created unhealthy scenes leading to the intervention of neighbours and friends. The other objectionable conduct attributed to the respondent are that she refused to prepare food, failed to do household activities and behaved in an indifferent manner to the parents of the appellant. The rude behaviour of the respondent in the above regard is said to have continued even after the appellant shifting residence to a rented house along with the respondent and son. The appellant is said to have reverted back to his parental house since the respondent, allegedly, did not mend her ways even after the commencement of residence at an independent house. The appellant is said to have filed a complaint before the police against the above cruel behaviour of the respondent on 04.10.2002, the day when the respondent allegedly left the house along with her father and brother-in-laws. On the basis of a complaint preferred by the respondent alleging matrimonial cruelty, the Kasaba Police Station, Kochi registered Crime No.256 of 2002 against the appellant and his parents for the commission of offence under Section 498A and 323 I.P.C. The appellant would further allege that he has been taking care of his son since the respondent abandoned her duty in the above regard. On the basis of the above allegations, the appellant has approached the Family Court, Ernakulam with a petition filed under Section 10 and 18 of the Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, desertion and non-fulfilment of marital obligations.

3. The respondent countered the petition alleging that she was being subjected to unbearable cruelty of physical and mental tortures at the instance of the appellant and his parents. She would contend that the appellant and his parents used to harass, insult and abuse her demanding more money as dowry. According to the respondent, the appellant was entrusted with an amount of about Rs.4,00,000/- in addition to her gold ornaments. The respondent would allege that the appellant, an alcoholic, was having contact with persons of bad reputation and used to quarrel with neighbours without any reason. Another allegation levelled by the respondent against the appellant is that at the insistence of the appellant and his parents, she had to undergo abortion of her second pregnancy. According to the respondent, the quarrelsome nature of the appellant was the reason for frequent shifting of residences. She would contend that the appellant even used to create scenes at the houses of his brothers by verbally abusing them. On many occasions, the appellant is alleged to have subjected the respondent to severe physical torture after making her starve without any food and water. The respondent is said to have preferred complaint before the police, unable to bear the physical and mental tortures of the appellant and his parents. The appellant is said to have preferred complaint against the respondent as a counterblast to the above complaint preferred by the respondent. According to the respondent, the appellant has been preventing the respondent from meeting and interacting with her child. It is alleged that the appellant refused the access of the respondent to their child in spite of the intervention of mediators who r