The court established that cruelty in matrimonial relationships may vary per individual circumstances, and a spouse's suffering must be evaluated contextually.

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha.J Challenge in this appeal is by the wife against the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Ottapalam which declined the relief of divorce sought by her on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 2. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 9.11.2009 as per the rites and ceremonies of Hindus and thereafter it was registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. In the wedlock, a child was born to them. After the marriage, respondent subjected the appellant to cruelty. He failed to look after the affairs of the appellant and her child and totally neglected them and he spent his income for his own luxurious life. Respondent is a drunkard and he physically and mentally harassed the appellant after consuming alcohol. On 12.11.2015 at 10 pm. respondent manhandled the appellant and the child and he ousted them from the house. During that night appellant and her child had to take refuge in the neighbouring home. On the next day, she returned to her parental home and thereafter she had undergone treatment at Government Hospital, Ottapalam and laid a complaint before the police on 15.11.2015. Respondent has totally neglected and deserted the appellant. Hence divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

3. In the objection filed by the respondent, he denied the entire allegations levelled against him and contended that he has neither subjected her to cruelty nor deserted her. Appellant is the daughter of the maternal uncle of the respondent. It was a love marriage. Appellant’s mother had objection in the said marriage and therefore her mother always tried to separate the appellant from the respondent and laid various complaints against him. On 13.11.2015, appellant left the house by saying that she wanted to attend an interview at Ottapalam. But she did not return on that day and accordingly, respondent filed a missing complaint to the police station. Upon enquiry made by the police, it was revealed that the appellant had gone to her own house at the instigation of her mother. Appellant has filed petition for divorce, suppressing material facts and she is a tool in the hands of her mother. Respondent also contended that he filed O.P.No.307/2017 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and filed O.P.No.302/2017 seeking permanent custody of the child. He denied the allegations of cruelty and desertion levelled against him and sought dismissal of the Original Petition.

4. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court dismissed the Original Petition on the ground that appellant failed to establish the cruelty and desertion as alleged in the petition.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Family Court went wrong in appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective and erred in dismissing the Original Petition.

6. The evidence consists of the oral testimonies of PW1, RW1 and documents marked as Exts.B1 series, B2 and B3.

7. Despite service of notice, respondent failed to appear and did not take part in these proceedings.

8. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the judgment and decree of the Family Court dismissing the petition for divorce needs any interference by this Court.

9. Admittedly the parties are Hindus. Appellant’s case that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 9.11.2009 as per Hindu religious rites is not disputed by the respondent and subsequently it was registered on 15.7.2013. It is also not in dispute that after the marriage, they were residing toge