Kerala High Court
Venugopalan @ Sundaran vs Rathi on 3 July, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal.No. 128 of 2017 1 2025:KER:48345
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 128 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2016 IN OP NO.2013 OF 2013 OF FAMILY
COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
VENUGOPALAN @ SUNDARAN, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR,
MANIKKATH HOUSE, MINALOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
SMT.R.RAJITHA
SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR
SRI.VYSAKH VIJAYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 RATHI, D/O. KONCHATH GOVINDANKUTTY
MULAYAM,THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 751
NOW RESIDING AT C/O. POLIYEDATH PRAKASSAN,
CHEMBUTTHARA P.O,PATTIKKAD,
THRISSUR - 680 652.
2 JIJESH KANNAN
S/O. AMBAKAD KOMALAM, MINALOOR P.O, KURANCHERY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 581.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.07.2025, THE COURT ON 03.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal.No. 128 of 2017 2 2025:KER:48345
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal No.128 of 2017
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The husband filed a petition for divorce on the grounds
of matrimonial cruelty and adultery. By the impugned order in
this appeal, the Family Court, Thrissur, dismissed the
petition, finding that the husband had failed to substantiate
the allegations.
2. The marriage between the appellant and the first
respondent was solemnised on 12.04.1993 in accordance with
Hindu religious rites. They have two children, aged 19 and 17
years. According to the appellant, his wife--the first
respondent--frequently visited her parental home and would
often quarrel with him, demanding money for her personal
needs. She also allegedly insisted that the appellant to
purchase property near her parental residence and relocate
Mat.Appeal.No. 128 of 2017 3 2025:KER:48345
there. In 2005, in an attempt to avoid further conflict, the
appellant purchased five cents of property from his father
and, under pressure from his wife, registered the property in
her name.
3. Over time, contrary to the appellant's expectations,
the relationship deteriorated due to the wife's alleged
quarrelsome nature. In January 2007, the wife left the
matrimonial home without the appellant's consent. However, she
later returned following a mediation effort. During this
period, the appellant alleges that the wife developed an
illicit relationship with the second respondent, who is the
son of the appellant's sister. On 02.08.2013, the appellant
claims to have witnessed the first and second respondents
engaged in sexual intercourse in his bedroom. Following this
incident, the wife left the matrimonial home, and the parties
have been living separately since then.
4. The first respondent denied all the allegations. She
contended that it was, in fact, the appellant who frequently
quarrelled with her over trivial matters and persistently cast
Mat.Appeal.No. 128 of 2017 4 2025:KER:48345
unfounded doubts on her character. She further alleged that
the appellant was leading an immoral life and had subjected
her to continuous ill-treatment, ultimately forcing her to
leave the matrimonial home. The second respondent remained ex
parte during the proceedings.
5. Upon a thorough evaluation of the oral and documentary
evidence presented by both sides, the learned Family Judge
dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant.
7. In order to prove the allegations of cruelty and
adultery, the appellant primarily relied on his own testimony
as PW1 and the testimony of his neighbour, who is examined as
PW2. However, the evidence of PW2 is of limited evidentiary
value, as he merely stated that he had seen the second
respondent at the appellant's residence on several occasions
during the appellant's absence. Given that the second
respondent is the appellant's nephew, such a statement does
not, by itself, support the appellant's case.
Mat.Appeal.No. 128 of 2017 5 2025:KER:48345
8. Although the appellant filed a chief affidavit
consistent with the averments in his pleadings, his cross-
examination revealed that the core issue between him and his
wife pertained only to her frequent desire to visit her
parental home. He stated that:
" 2013 വര ഞന ഭ യമ യ നല ബനത ല യ ന . . ഇടക ഇടക
അവർ വഴക ക ട .. ഞ ൻ മ ണ യ ട ക മ ല തത ന ൽ ഞൻ
മ ണ റ ല.. ഒന എത ർകകയ രട വ'ട ലലക ഇടക ഇടക ല) കണ
എന )റഞ വഴക ണ ക റ ണ . കളവ യ ആവശ ങള ണ )റയ റ . എനരറ
അലന0ഷണത ൽ അവ രട ആവശ ങൾ യ ഥ ർഥങളല . അത ല4 ദ
ര4യ ല7 ഴ ണ വഴക ണ ക നത . വ'ട ൽ ല) ക നത ന ഞൻ
സമത ക റ ണ. . വ'ട ൽ ല) ക നത ന ന ങൾ തടസ )റയ റ ലല Q: Ans:
ഉണ . വ'ട ൽ ല) ക നത രനക റ ച ള തർകങള ണ ക ട തല
ഉണ യ ട ളത."
When the appellant's evidence is examined in its entirety, we
find no material to support his case.
9. Apart from that, we are inclined to accept the
testimony of RW2, who is none other than the appellant's
father. According to RW2, the appellant is a habitual drunkard
who failed to take care of his wife and children. He further
deposed that the appellant maintained an illicit relationship
with a woman who had been deserted by her husband. RW2 also
Mat.Appeal.No. 128 of 2017 6 2025:KER:48345
stated that the appellant used to ill-treat the first
respondent and spread baseless and defamatory allegations
against her. Significantly, RW2 clarified that the second
respondent was only four years old at the time of the
appellant's marriage with the first respondent, rendering the
allegation of an illicit relationship between them wholly
implausible. RW2's testimony remained unshaken despite
thorough cross-examination by the appellant. We find no reason
to disbelieve his evidence, particularly his assertion
regarding the age of the second respondent at the time of the
marriage, which directly undermines the appellant's case.
Notably, there was no substantial challenge to this aspect of
his deposition. We have also perused the testimony of RW3, the
father of the first respondent, which fully supports the
version of the wife.
10. Thus, upon a comprehensive evaluation of the
entire evidence on record, we find no merit in the contentions
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Although it
was alleged that the appellant was subjected to cruelty by his
wife and that she maintained an illicit relationship with his
Mat.Appeal.No. 128 of 2017 7 2025:KER:48345
nephew, he failed to prove either allegation. Accordingly, we
find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, and the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed, affirming the
impugned judgment. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
dlk/2.7.25
