The judgment establishes that mental cruelty can justify divorce under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence for distress and the need for compassionate legislation for women's rights.

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha.J These two appeals have been preferred by the husband, challenging the judgment and decree of divorce obtained by the wife in O.P.No.907/2014 of Family Court Irinjalakuda and assailing the dismissal of O.P.No.862/2014 filed by him seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

2. We are disposing these appeals jointly as it involve identical factual disputes between the same parties.

3. The wife/respondent herein filed O.P.No.907/2014 seeking divorce under Section 2 (ii)(viii)(a)(b) and (d) of Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') stating that her marriage with the appellant was held on 20.9.2010; that the appellant/husband misappropriated her 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹2,50,000/- given as patrimony. Thereafter he tortured and harassed her demanding a further sum of ₹10 lakhs from her house. His mother and sisters also harassed her mentally and physically, demanding more dowry. Appellant used to harass her after consuming liquor and used to abuse her in filthy language by casting aspersions on her chastity and he intimidated her and her family members. Appellant maintained illicit relationship with other ladies and he used to show the respondent his intimate photographs with them. Due to the immoral conduct of the appellant, he lost his job abroad and he was detained in a jail abroad in a cheating case. Due to the constant harassment of the appellant and his family members, she had laid a complaint before the Kodungallur Juma Masjid Mahallu Committee and before the Kodungallur Police Station and the police registered Crime 3233/2012 against the appellant. She has also laid a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The marital life of the respondent with the appellant was miserable due to the physical and mental cruelty subjected to by the appellant. Hence, she sought for dissolution of her marriage with the appellant.

4. Appellant filed counter admitting the marriage but denying the allegations of cruelty levelled against him. There was no physical or mental harassment, as alleged, and there was no demand for dowry. At the time of marriage, appellant and his family had gifted 17 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent. The parents of the respondent purchased the ornaments for her wedding on credit from a jewellery and after the marriage her mother took back all the ornaments. During the time of marriage, appellant was working abroad. Respondent was very happy in the company of the appellant. Difference of opinion between the couple arose when the appellant questioned about her mother’s illicit relationship with certain men and when he questioned about the behavior and conduct of the respondent’s sister. In February 2014, respondent met with an accident and accordingly the appellant had requested her to stay in her paternal home. Thereafter, respondent did not attend the phone calls of the appellant. According to the appellant, it is only due to the undue interference of the respondent's mother, the parties are unable to reunite. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the divorce petition.

5. Appellant/husband also filed O.P.No.862/2014 seeking restitution of conjugal rights on the assertion that wife has been living separately from 17.02.2014 onwards without any reasonable cause.

6. As stated in the opening paragraph, by the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Family Court decreed O.P.No.907/2014 filed by the wife, granting a decree of divorce. O.P.No.862/2014 filed by the appe