Cruelty for divorce cannot be established by trivial disputes over household responsibilities, and allegations of adultery require the inclusion of the alleged paramour in divorce proceedings.

J U D G M E N T

C.S.Sudha, J.

This appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the respondent/wife in O.P.No. 1449/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam, against the order granting divorce in favour of the petitioner/husband on the ground of cruelty. The parties in this appeal will be referred to as described in the original proceedings.

2. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 23/03/1998 as per the rites and customs of the community to which they belong. In the wedlock, two children, named, Midhun Raj and Nidhin Raj, aged 16 and 12 years respectively, were born. From the time of the marriage, the respondent had adopted a non-cooperative attitude. She was not ready to do the household chores. She used to wake up late and never prepare food for the children, who were forced to eat food from the school canteen. The respondent was also quite quarrelsome, and she used to find fault with the petitioner and fight with him for no reason. The respondent failed to discharge her marital obligations. They used to sleep in separate rooms. She never showed any inclination to have coitus with the petitioner. However, on 31/03/2014, she approached the petitioner with intention to have coitus with him. After 8 days of the coitus, the respondent informed the petitioner that she was pregnant. On 08/04/2014, they went to the hospital and on checkup it was confirmed that the respondent was pregnant. On 02/06/2014 the respondent underwent tubectomy. In the last week of August 2014, the petitioner happened to see the respondent in a compromising position with one Alias Mathew, with whom she had been maintaining an illicit relationship. After the said incident, the respondent stayed away from the petitioner for about five (5) months. On 23/01/2015, she left the matrimonial home along with her brother. The respondent had confessed of her relationship with Alias Mathew to the petitioner's brother. The conduct of the respondent has made it impossible for the petitioner to live with her. The respondent deserted the petitioner with the intention of putting an end to the marital relationship. The petitioner on above allegations, sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty on the part of the respondent.

3. The respondent/wife filed objection and denied the allegations of cruelty and adulterous relationship with Alias Mathew. Rather it was averred that the petitioner always suspected the fidelity of the respondent. Right from the beginning of the marriage, he suspected the respondent to be having illicit relationship with others and even went to the extent of alleging that she has an adulterous relation with her maternal uncle. The respondent's mother passed away while she was a young child and hence her father remarried. Therefore, she was brought up by maternal grandmother and her maternal uncle at the tharavad house of her mother. The petitioner, due to his suspicious character had even gone to the extent of attributing paternity of the elder child on the uncle of the respondent. The allegation that the respondent never used to do the household chores or cook food for the family was emphatically denied and said to be false. The petitioner installed a Close Circuit TV camera for the purpose of watching and recording the activities and movements of the respondent. The alleged illicit relationship of the respondent with Alias Mathew is false and incorrect. The said person has also not been arrayed as a party in the petition. There was no cause of action for the filing of the petition as the allegations referred to in the petition were said to be false. The respondent contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for.

4. After completion of the pleadings, the parties went to trial. PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ext.A1 to A6 series were marked on the side of the petitioner. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B2 were marked on the side of the respondent. The family co