The main legal point established in the judgment is the irretrievable breakdown of marriage due to mental cruelty, leading to the restoration of the divorce decree.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Sections 19 (1) of Family Court Act, 1984 and Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 06.08.2014 passed in HMOP.No.607 of 2006 (Dissolution of Marriage) and H.M.O.P.No.526 of 2007 (Restitution of Conjugal Rights) on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore by allowing the appeals.)

Common Judgment:

Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.

1. These Appeals filed by the Appellant/Wife as Party-in-person against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore granting decree of divorce to the Respondent/Husband in H.M.O.P.No.607 of 2006 on the ground of cruelty by the Appellant/Wife and dismissing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed in H.M.O.P.No.526 of 2007 by the Appellant/Wife.

2. It is the contention of the Appellant/Party-in-person that after filing of the Appeal as C.M.A.SR.No.82307 of 2014 and issuing notice before numbering the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the Respondent/Husband had contracted second marriage on the strength of the decree of divorce granted by the learned Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore in H.M.O.P.No.607 of 2006.

2.1. It is her contention that the grounds raised by the Husband in H.M.O.P.No.607 of 2006 were with regard to the age of the Appellant/Wife as if she is 5 years older than him, which is considered inauspicious. If that had been true, he should have filed petition for divorce when he was in service in Border Security Force. Having completed his period of contract with the Border Security Force on attaining the age of superannuation and after obtaining the benefit of pension, only with false averments, he had filed the petition for divorce. The learned Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore had not at all considered the evidence let in by the Wife as Respondent in the Petition filed by her Husband in H.M.O.P.No.607 of 2006 and the evidence of the Wife as Petitioner in the Petition filed by her in H.M.O.P.No.526 of 2007 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Ignoring the plight of the Wife and the minor children, the learned Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore, had without any basis granted the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty against the Wife and in favour of the Husband which is perverse and is to be set aside.

2.2. The Appellant/Wife invited the attention of this Court to the date of birth of the Appellant/Wife. As per the claim of the Respondent/Husband filed by him as Petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.607 of 2006 wherein the Headmaster of the School where the Appellant//Wife had studied till her School final, was cross-examined by the Appellant/Wife before the Family Court. In the cross-examination, the Headmaster as P.W-2 had accepted that he had not seen the person/student by name Sumathy.

2.3. It is her contention that the relying on the evidence of the said official witness, the learned Judge had arrived at a conclusion that the Wife had committed forgery regarding her date of birth in the school certificate. Based on which, the Respondent/Husband had produced a certificate before his Higher Authority in Border Security Force to get employment for his Wife as a Teacher in the Border Security Force School where the Respondent/Husband had served. Based on which, the allegation by the Respondent/Husband against the Wife that she committed forgery had been accepted by the Court and granted a decree of divorce.

2.4. It is her contention that within the same compound, there were two persons by same name i.e., Mani Assary (Carpenter) whereas the father of the Appellant/Wife was Mani Achari (Goldsmith). The two families had children by the same name. Therefore, it is her contention that the Respondent/Husband of the Appellant viz., Venugopal had obtained the certificate regarding Sumathy D/o. Mani Assary (Carpenter) and not Sumathy, D/o. Mani Achari (Goldsmith) which was produced as document before the Court, based on which, the learned Judge had granted the decree of divorce.