IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 22537 of 1998(G) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THRESIAMMA P.J., PALAKUNNEL HOUSE, KARUVARAKUNDU, PERINTHALMANNA, THARISH P.O., MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- BIJO ABRAHAM VARKEY, VATTAKKATTIL HOUSE, S.N.PURAM P.O., PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss O.P.NO.22537/1998 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: N I L RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.NO. 22537 OF 1998 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed u/s 10 of the Divorce Act for dissolution of marriage. It is a petition filed by the wife against the husband alleging cruelty. A brief reference to the writ petition would reveal that the unfortunate couples got married on 16.12.97 and immediately after three days the husband left for his place of work in gulf countries. The wife would allege that even for obtaining consent it was misrepresented that he is a graduate in science with diploma in polytechnic and thereafter it was revealed that he is only a S.S.L.C. with ITC and he did not have a salary of 1,200 Soudhi Riyal and only having 600 Soudhi Riyals. On persuasion of the husband the wife resigned her job and came back to the native place and then applied for employment in the place of work of the husband. During her stay in the husband's house she was deprived of her ornaments, she was deprived of her savings O.P. 22537 of 1998 -2- and there was a further demand for Rs.50,000/- from the father of the petitioner and though there was some communication to start with between the husband and wife ultimately that also ended and the husband totally neglected the wife. Ultimately with the hope of joining the husband she secured a job in his place of work with the expectation that the husband would receive her in the airport. He did not turn up at all and that also made her life miserable at the place of work. So by the persistent and consistent methods the husband and the members of the family had treated her with cruelty and therefore she had claimed divorce u/s 10(x) of the Divorce Act. The husband was not personally served but paper publication was carried out and even then there is no representation for him. The wife had filed an affidavit as well an additional affidavit in support of her contentions and she was present before me and I had got myself satisfied about the grounds alleged in the petition that she really requires a divorce as she had been dealt with cruelly by the husband and members of his family. Absolutely there is no contra evidence. O.P. 22537 of 1998 -3- It is also averred that the husband has married somebody else and is living with the children in that wife. So from the materials available it is to be held that the wife has succeeded in proving cruelty as contemplated u/s 10(x) of the Divorce Act which reads as follows. “The wife is entitled to divorce if the husband has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the husband.” That ingredient is satisfied and therefore I am inclined to grant a divorce subject to S.16 of the Act. Therefore the O.P. is allowed and dissolution of marriage under clause (x) of sub-section 1 of Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 is granted and a decree Nisi is issued for dissolution of marriage u/s 16 of the Divorce Act. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- O.P. 22537 of 1998 -4- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = O.P. No. 22537 OF 1998 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 3rd November, 2008.