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 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 103 of 2006() ---------------------------- OP.105/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------- PUNNAKKATTUKUZHI PULARI, PUNNAKKATTUKUZHI HOUSE, ANGADIPPURAM VIA., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.PRAKASH RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER ------------------- MOOKKILAYIL PRAKASH, MOOKILAYIL HOUSE, CHERAKKAPARAMBA.P.O, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.A.C.SANKARA VARMA FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NOS.807/2006 & 924/2008 IN MAT.APPEAL 103/2006 --------- DISMISSED Sd/- P.R.RAMAN , JUDGE. 22/10/2008 Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.NO.103 OF 2006 -------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman,J. This appeal is filed against the decree for divorce passed by the Family Court, Manjeri in a petition O.P.No.105/2005 filed by the husband alleging cruelty on the part of the wife meted out to the mother of the husband. The main allegation in the petition for divorce is that after the marriage between the parties in February, 2002, a child was born. The wife did not show any affection and intimacy to the parents of the husband and even ignored them which caused mental agony to them. Gradually she stopped communication with other members of the house and her conduct became unbearable and the husband tried to advice her. One day when the relatives of the husband came to his house, the wife behaved in an abnormal manner and threw away a plate on the aged mother of the husbabnd. Feeling totally distressed, the mother of -2- M.A.No.103/2006 the husband even made an attempt to commit suicide by consuming poison and she was admitted to the hospital. To support the contention, PW-2 mother herself gave evidence. Besides, the husband gave evidence as PW-1. The appellant-wife denied the allegation. The court below found that there was no reasonable excuse for her to live away from the matrimonial house. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would support the case of the husband that his mother was ill-treated and she had suffered mental agony. Naturally, the husband, who is the only son, would have suffered agony and pain because of the said conduct on the part of his wife to his mother on several occasions. A neighbour was examined in the case as PW-3. According to him, after six months of the marriage itself, there was a separation between the appellant and the respondent, and the reunion was as a result of his mediation. The behaviour of the appellant as spoken to by PW-3 also corroborates the version of PWs.1 and 2 that the husband and wife -3- M.A.No.103/2006 were not living together in a harmonious manner and even neighbours had interfered to mediate and to bring out a reconciliation. Though for some time as a result of the mediation they started living together, it was only an attempt and breaking the matrimonial tie irretrievably, all this time the wife is living separately in her own parental home. Though the petition itself was filed in 2005, parties had no case that at any point of time they lived together. Even an attempt made by this Court through conciliator did not yield any result to bring about a settlement between the parties. The fact that the mother was admitted to the hospital on 20th June, 2004 is proved by the discharge card produced as Ext.A1 in the case. It was in these circumstances, that the court below found that if the appellant was a caring daughter-in-law, the situation would not have been brought up as alleged in the petition. On an over all consideration of the entire materials available on record, the conduct of the appellant at the house of the husband was -4- M.A.No.103/2006 found as amounting to cruelty and we do not find any reason to disagree with the said finding. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed. However, though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant made an oral application for grant of permanent alimony or maintenance, in the absence of any application and in the absence of any material placed on the question of income of the respondent herein, we think it will be proper to leave the same to be decided in an appropriate application to be filed by the appellant before the Family Court. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge. kcv.