IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 RP.No. 6 of 2009() ------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN MA.103/2006 Dated 22/10/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------- PUNNAKKATTUKUZHI PULARI, PUNNAKKATTUKUZHI HOUSE, ANGADIPPURAM VIA, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- MOOKKILAYIL PRAKASH, MOOKKILAYIL HOUSE, CHERAKKAPARAMB P.O, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. NO.6/2009 IN MAT. APPEAL 103/2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009. O R D E R Raman, J. This is a petition seeking review of our judgment dated 22.10.2008 in Mat. Appeal No. 103/2006. The matrimonial appeal itself arises out of a decree for divorce granted by the Family Court, Manjeri, in a petition filed by the husband. It was after analysing the entire evidence on record that the Family Court ultimately granted a decree for divorce. After hearing the parties and referring to the evidence on record, we found no ground no ground to interfere with the finding of the Family Court and hence the appeal was dismissed. 2. In the review petition, however, it is contended that the requirement under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriages Act for granting a decree for divorce is 'treating the petitioner with cruelty' and the allegation that any misbehaviour is exhibited towards the mother and the relatives of the petitioner is, therefore, not a sufficient ground under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. As per the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) 'treating the R.P. 6/2009 IN MAT.A. 103/2006 :2: petitioner with cruelty' is in no way restricted to a physical cruelty meted out to the party complaining the same and as has been held by the Apex Court cruelty can be both physical and mental. Therefore, in the given case, whether any mental cruelty is meted out to the husband will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. When the son has got a moral obligation to look after his mother, any cruelty meted out to her will naturally wound the feelings of the husband and we do not find that such misbehaviour towards the mother of the husband is excluded from the Section. Whether any cruelty is meted out physically or mentally will depend upon the materials produced in the case. It is after analysing the whole evidence that the court below came to the conclusion that cruelty has been meted out by the husband. We have anxiously considered the evidence with reference to the pleadings on record and we agreed with the findings of the court below. In such circumstances, we do not find any ground to review the judgment. Review Petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, ( JUDGE). T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ( JUDGE). KNC/-