Kerala High Court
Sindhu Sankar vs A.V.Sankara Narayanan on 8 February, 2021
Mat.Appeal.No.70/16 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942
Mat.Appeal.No.70 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 671/2009 DATED 10-09-2015 OF
FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM
APPELLANT/S:
SINDHU SANKAR,
W/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, RESIDING AT TC 48/327-1,
SHRADHA, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.KUSUMAM
SRI.K.KALESH
RESPONDENT/S:
A.V.SANKARA NARAYANAN
S/O.VELU, RESIDING AT 'ARAVIND', KULATHARA ROAD,
RAJEEV GANDHI LANE, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 304.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
R1 BY ADV. SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL
R1 BY ADV. SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.MOHAMMED ISMAIL
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD
R1 BY ADV. SRI.J.RAMKUMAR
R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal.No.70/16 2
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2021
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
Appellant and respondent were married on 10.12.1992
in accordance with the customs and ceremonies
prevailing in the community to which they belong. In
the wedlock, two female children were born. The
parties are living separately from November, 2007
onwards.
2. This appeal is preferred by the wife against
granting of divorce in favour of the respondent/husband
on the ground of cruelty.
3. The husband urged ground of cruelty referring
to the following acts:
(i) The husband was subjected to physical
torture by the wife's brother.
(ii) The wife used to ridicule the husband in
the presence of others without any valid
reasons.
(iii) In two previous litigations initiated by
the wife in O.P.No.1185/2007 and
O.P.No.1186/2007 claiming maintenance as well
as for custody of minor children, wife raised
false and defamatory allegations against the
husband.
4. The Family Court negatived the claim of
torture and allegation that husband was ridiculed in
the presence of others. However, noting that in earlier
proceedings appellant raised malicious contentions
against the respondent, granted decree for divorce.
5. The short point that arises for consideration
in this appeal is whether the allegations in previous
proceedings would amount to cruelty or not.
6. In the previous proceedings it was alleged
that the husband is having illicit relationship with
one Beena Rajagopal. There is no dispute to the fact
that those allegations were set out in the previous
proceedings initiated by the wife against the husband.
It is appropriate to refer to the allegations set out
in the previous proceedings as noted by the Family
Court.
"1. ബ നയ ണ തൻട എല ട ന അത ന ൽ യ ൾ പറയ നത
ഞന അന സര ച ട ളണട ന ഭർത വ എനന ട
പറഞ........... എന ൽ പന ള ഭർത വ ൻട യ
ബ നയ ട യ സ സ രത ൽ ന ന ടപര റത ൽ ന ന അവർ
തമ ല ള ബന എന ക. നസ ല യ ."
"2. എത0 ക ടറ ര സ3ത യ യ അവ ഹ ത ബനത ൽ
ഴ ഞവര ന ആള ണ."
"3. എൻട സത8വ ങ. :ലത ൽ എത0 ക ടറ ര സ3ത യ യ
അവ ഹ ത ബനത ൽ ഴ ഞവര ന എന. പറഞട ളത
ശര യ ണ."
"4. ന ങൾ പറയ നത എത0 ക യ ബ ന ര ജന> പ ല തമ ൽ
ലല > ബന ട@ന നണ (Q). ഉ@.. (A)."
"5. ബ ന ര ജന> പ ല യ ന ങള ട ഭർത വ ന അസ ന ർഗ
ബന ട@ന. യ ടത ര അ സ നവ ല ടതExt.A14, A15, A16
and A17 - ൽ ആനര പണ ഉനയ ച ര ക യ ടണന പറയ ന
(Q). ഒന ച ത സ കണട ന ളതട @. ഞൻ ഒന
പറയ ന ല."
"6. ഞൻ ഭർത വ ട ള യ ഒന ച ത സ കണട ന.
ആ3>ഹ ക നത ട @. ഇനG ൾ ഒന പറയ ന ല."
7. In the present proceedings, also in the
counter filed by the wife, she again reiterated the
allegations. It is stated in the counter that
"whenever the respondent came on leave, he used to
spent more time with Mrs. & Mr.Beena Rajagopal." The
wife was unsuccessful in proving her allegations as
noted above against the husband.
8. In fact, as noted in the impugned judgment of
the Family Court, wife stood by such affirmation made
in the pleadings as well as an affidavit filed in
support of the examination before the Family Court.
When allegations are made, which would impair the
relationship of the parties, court will have to weight
such allegations to find its nature to constitute a
ground for divorce. These allegations cannot be treated
as mere impulsive or spontaneous reaction of the wife.
But on the other hand, it was a very articulated
opinion formed by her and imputed against the husband.
No doubt, if there is a merit or truth in such
allegation, these imputations cannot be termed as
cruelty. In the absence of any truth or merit, such
imputation certainly would create an impact on the
reputation and character of the husband. The stand of
the wife in earlier proceedings, attributing illicit
relationship with Beena Rajagopal have to be treated as
cruelty as it portrays husband with loose morals. The
wife herself never retracted from her stand. In the
said circumstances, we find that ground of cruelty was
made out to grant decree of divorce, we find no reason
to interfere with the judgment of the Family Court.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
DG
