IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 MFA.No. 428 of 2003() --------------------- OP.271/2001 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- KAVUNGAL KAPPEKKATTU ZEENATH D/O. VEERAN MOIDEEN, 21 YEARS, KAPPEKKATTU HOUSE, CHELEMBRA AMSOM, CHELUPADAM DESOM, CHELEMBRA P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ----------------------- SULFEEKAR ALI S/O. MUHAMMED, 26 YEARS, MALAYIL MUNDEKKATTU HOUSE, THENHIPALAM AMSOM DESOM, THENHIPALAM P.O., NEEROLPPALAM, TIRURANGARI TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. 428 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. The respondent in O.P. No. 271 of 2001 on the file of the Family Court, Majeri is the appellant. The said Original Petition was filed by the respondent herein as petitioner for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court allowed the Original Petition and directed the respondent to resume cohabitation with the petitioner. Aggrieved by the above order, the wife has come up in appeal. The parties are hereinafter referred to as petitioner and respondent as in the Original Petition. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 28.6.1998. A child was born in the wedlock. It is the case of the petitioner/husband that he and the respondent were living together and that there was no difference of opinion or any problem between them. It is his further case that on 22.2.2000, the brother of the respondent took her to her parental house and thereafter she refused to come back to the matrimonial home stating that there are no facilities in the house. The petitioner further stated that he requires the love and affection of the respondent and, therefore, sought a direction to resume conjugal relationship. The M.F.A.NO.428/2003. 2 respondent/wife denied the allegations and contended that the petitioner/husband and his people continuously ill treated her physically and mentally, that they appropriated the gold ornaments given to her by her parents and made frequent demands for money and ornaments and thus she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home on 22.2.2000. 3. Before the Family Court, the petitioner and another witness were examined as PWs.1 and 2 respectively and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side. The respondent was examined as RW.1. The Family Court elaborately considered the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to an order for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent. The petitioner let in evidence to the effect that his life with the respondent/wife was a normal one and there was no reason for any estrangement. He made several attempts for reconciliation, but failed. According to the petitioner/ husband, it is the relatives of the respondent/wife who are preventing her from joining him and that it is at their instigation that the respondent has filed the case for maintenance for herself and the child. The evidence of PW.2 also supports the case of the petitioner that attempt for reconciliation was made in March, 2000. The wife as RW.1 deposed that she was severely assaulted by her husband and her gold ornaments were taken away by him. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Family Court M.F.A.NO.428/2003. 3 observed that the case of the petitioner that there was no difference of opinion between him and the respondent is true. The Family Court, for the reasons stated in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the order, found that from the conduct of the petitioner, evidence and other circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner desires the company of his wife and child and that the respondent's refusal to cohabit with the petitioner is not for valid reasons. 4. From the facts and circumstances of the case stated in more details in the judgment, we find that there is no justifiable reason for the wife in not cohabiting with the petitioner/husband. We agree with the reasonings and findings. Therefore, the decree passed by the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights and the direction to the respondent to resume cohabitation with the petitioner are not liable to be interfered with. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ M.F.A.NO.428/2003. 4 KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. M.F.A.NO. 428/2003 JUDGMENT 20th August, 2008