IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 124 of 2008() ---------------------------- OPDIV.741/2006 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER: APPELLANT --------------------- SUMODH, S/O.SAMUEL (LATE), KAVINKIZHAKETHIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT ----------------------- GIGI, D/O.SAMUEL, KAIPILALIL THOMADATHU HOUSE, KEEZHUKARA, KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.IYPE JOSEPH SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, ALONG WITH MA NO. 126 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ===================== M.A.Nos.124 & 126 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy,J. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 15.3.2003 in accordance with the religious rites followed by the Christian Community. The husband was employed in the Middle East. Earlier the marriage life was peaceful except for minor problems. Later, disputes arose between them. The petitioner returned from the Gulf during the month of July, 2004. During this period, there were many differences. It is submitted that whatever dress materials were purchased by him she used to show displeasure by refusing to accept the same. In the parental home she declared in front of the family members that her father has choosen a worthless person as her husband. Even after counselling there was no improvement in their relationship. The wife was living with the mother of the husband in his family when he was abroad. The Mat. Appeals 124 & 126/08 -: 2 :- wife was indifferent towards her. She also declared that the marriage was conducted against her will. It is the husband's case that she used to state in public that he is impotent. Even though she became pregnant, due to premature delivery the child died. In the circumstances, he applied for dissolution of marriage alleging mental cruelty by her. He had also a case that the old mother is in his house and the mother's life will be in danger if she is living in the house. After sending of the notice, she is very indifferent and cruel towards the mother and therefore, he also filed a petition for evicting her from the marital house. 2. The wife has got a case that even after counselling by Rev.Marceline J.Morais of Divine Communication Centre, he was not amenable ands he refused to take her back. There was an amount of Rs.3 lakhs in the bank in their joint account. It was later converted into post office deposit as suggested by the husband. But without her knowledge, Rs.1 lakh was spent by him. Few ornaments from the bank locker were also taken without her knowledge. She has got a further case that even though he was informed of the death of her new born baby, he had not even cared to make a phone call to her. According to her, Mat. Appeals 124 & 126/08 -: 3 :- the husband was actually cruel towards her. 3. Both husband and wife were present in this Court. After having discussions with the parties several times, we came to the conclusion that the marriage was irretrievably broken. Both the parties allege cruelty on each other. Further, it is impossible to join them together. At that time we suggested for a divorce on mutual consent. The husband offered to pay Rs.8 lakhs in settlement of all the claims. The counsel for the wife demanded Rs.15 lakhs. Finally after much persuasion, the husband stated that he can pay only upto Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.3,000/- per month for three years as maintenance expecting that she can have another marriage within three years. Counsel for the respondent wife submitted that there is no guarantee for such payment and the matter can be settled, if Rs.12 lakhs is paid as a lumpsum. Finally, the husband submitted that even though the amount was very high and beyond his means, he will pay Rs.8 lakhs now and another Rs.3.5 lakhs within a period of four months. According to the wife, it will be very difficult for her to find out alternate accommodation as the brothers may not accept her again. Taking into consideration all these matters we directed the parties to Mat. Appeals 124 & 126/08 -: 4 :- have discussions in the presence of their advocates and file a joint petition and the case was posted today, but counsel for the respondent submitted that she had already left. Hence, we heard the matter on merit. 4. We have examined the evidence in detail. Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 shows that their marital life was broken and she has some hatred against him. The wife has got also many complaints against the husband. After considering the evidence and discussions with the parties, we came to the conclusion that the marriage is irretrievably broken and the marriage dissolved on the ground of mutual cruelty. In this connection, we refer to the decisions of the Apex Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli - AIR 2006 S.C. 1675 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh - 2007 (4) S.C.C. 511. Since the marriage is irretrievably broken, the marriage can be dissolved on the appellant husband settling all her claim. The husband shall deposit an amount of Rs.12 lakhs in full and final settlement of all the claims of the wife before the Family Court. On deposit of the amount of Rs.12 lakhs before the Family Court, the Family Court shall grant dissolution of marriage and within 7 days of such dissolution, the wife should Mat. Appeals 124 & 126/08 -: 5 :- vacate the matrimonial house and she can also withdraw the amount deposited in the Family Court. The respondent should be allowed to take all her personal belongings including the articles brought by her from parental house and articles gifted to her after marriage. Either of the parties can approach the Family Court for appointment of a Commissioner to see that she can go from the maternal house with her belongings without creating problems. The Family Court may post the matter for passing orders accordingly on 19.6.2008. On the posting date, the presence of the parties need not be insisted by the Family Court and they can be represented by lawyers. The appeals are disposed of as above. Issue urgent copy. J.B.Koshy, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 13/6