The court upheld the dissolution of marriage on grounds of mutual consent and determined a reasonable alimony considering the short marital duration and absence of children.

JUDGMENT :

K.Lakshman, J.

Heard Sri Ch. Siddhartha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant in both the cases and Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy learned senior counsel representing Sri B. Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. In both the Appeals, the appellant is the husband and the respondent is his wife. Their marriage was performed at Sri Krishna Temple, Guruvayoor, Thrissur, Kerala State on 24.10.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs and it is an arranged marriage.

3. According to the appellant/husband, after the marriage, he and his wife went to Palakkad, where the parents of the respondent had taken a rented house, wherein they have stayed for two days. On 27.10.2011 they both went to the house of the appellant/husband at Bhopal and attended the reception of their wedding. On 30.10.2011, they both returned to Ernakulam and started living together in a house taken on rent by the appellant/husband at Kakkanad, Ernakulam since 01.11.2011.

4. The appellant/husband contended that after reaching their house at Kakkanad, the respondent/wife started behaving in a strange way and showing abnormal behavior, mental disorder like hysteria and it continued for a longer period. The appellant/husband had waited for quite a long time. There was no change in the attitude of the respondent. Thus, according to the appellant/husband, the respondent/wife subjected him to cruelty. Therefore, he had filed an application under Section 13 (1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act vide FCOP No.237 of 2015 against the respondent/wife seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty.

5. The respondent/wife also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act vide FCOP No.1771 of 2016 seeking restitution of conjugal rights against her husband. Vide order dated 16.05.2019 the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District dismissed the aforesaid FCOP No.237 of 2015 filed by the appellant/husband seeking dissolution of the marriage and allowed the aforesaid FCOP No.1771 of 2016 filed by the respondent/wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant/husband preferred the present appeals.

6. A perusal of the record reveals that to prove the cruelty, the appellant/husband examined himself as PW1 and PWs 2 to 5. He had filed Exs.P1 to P7. To disprove the same, the respondent/wife examined herself as RW1 and her father as RW2. However, she has not exhibited any documents.

7. A perusal of the record also reveal that the respondent/wife had filed case against the appellant/husband vide M.C.No.271 of 2013 seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed awarding Rs.25,000/- to the wife towards maintenance.

8. According to the learned counsel, the appellant/husband has been paying the said amount to the respondent/wife. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy and learned senior counsel representing Sri B. Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent also confirmed the said fact.

9. As discussed supra, the parties lived together for a short period. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between them. The appellant/husband made serious allegations against the respondent/wife. Though the marriage was performed on 24.10.2011, they have stayed together for a short period. They have filed the aforesaid FCOPs in the years 2015 and 2016 for dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights respectively. Even as per the appellant, they are not staying together since 2011 onwards. The appellant/husband has filed FCOP No.237 of 2015 against wife for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty, therefore, he has to plead and prove the same by producing relevant evidence bot