J U D G M E N T

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J This appeal arises from the judgment of the Family Court, Nedumangad granting divorce to the respondent under the provisions of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939. Though the respondent sought dissolution of marriage on many grounds as referable under Sec.2(viii), divorce was granted invoking Sec.2(viii)(a).

2. Sec.2(viii)(a) provides as follows for granting divorce to a Muslim women.

“Grounds for decree for dissolution of marriage.-A woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on any one or more of the following grounds, namely-

Xxxxxxxxxx (viii) That the husband treats her with cruelty, that is to say,-

(a) habitually assaults her or makes her life miserable by cruelty of conduct even if such conduct does not amount to physical ill-treatment, or”

3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

4. Allegations of cruelty would constitute the ground under Sec.2(viii)(a) are set out in the petition for divorce. Constant demand for gold and money, ill treatment of the wife and refusal to have physical relationship have been put forward in the petition for divorce. The Family Court noted that criminal cases were registered against the appellant and his relatives for the offences punishable under Secs.498A and 312 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Family Court also noted the purchasing of scooter and bike by the father of the respondent for the appellant in order to meet the demand for dowry. There is yet another case was filed by the respondent for recovery of the gold ornaments and for recovery of movables. An Advocate Commission was appointed in that case. The Family Court noted the obstruction caused to the Advocate Commissioner by the appellant and his relatives. It was also noted by the Family Court, the respondent aborted pregnancy.

The parties were living separately from

28.06.2018. The evidence on the side of PW1 clearly established that the appellant meted out cruelty from the respondent. The abortion appears to have been carried out as the respondent sustained injury when she was pushed over to the door of the house and consequent upon the injury sustained from the fault thereon. The conduct of the appellant clearly reveals from the obstruction caused to the Advocate Commissioner appointed from the court. A final report filed by the police after the investigation was produced as Ext.A9. PW4 is the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the matter. The Advocate commissioner stated before this Court that she was prevented from executing the order of the court. The court need not disbelieve the case of the respondent that the appellant was not interested in physical relationship. The mental cruelty coupled with physical cruelty made the life of the respondent miserable. The marriage was solemnised on 8.04.2018. The short lived marriage itself would prove that the respondent could not tolerate the ill treatment. The demand for gold and money made the life of the respondent miserable. The court need not disbelieve the oral testimony of PW1 and others. We therefore, concur with the findings of the Family Court and dismiss the appeal. No costs.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE