X [APPELLANT/PETITIONER] Vs. Y [RESPONDENT]
MAT.APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2020
(2JB, AMIT RAWAL & C.S. SUDHA JJ., delivered by C.S.Sudha, J.)
Facts: The present appeals under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, have been filed against the common judgment on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam. O.P.No.1588/2014 was filed by the petitioner/wife claiming divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The respondent/husband filed O.P.No.1184/2017 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. O.P.No.1588/2014 has been dismissed and O.P.No.1184/2017 has been allowed. Mat Appeal No.24/2020 has been filed against the judgment and decree in O.P.No.1588/2014 and Mat Appeal No.65/2020, against the judgment and decree in O.P.No.1184/2017. The parties in these appeals will be referred to as described in O.P.No.1588/2014.
Issue: Whether the sexual perversions alleged to have been committed by the respondent/husband amounts to cruelty entitling the petitioner/wife to a decree of divorce?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife, the trial court committed a serious mistake in rejecting the plea of the wife for divorce. The evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. The petitioner had specifically pleaded that the respondent/husband used to subject her to sexual perversions. The petitioner refrained from giving a graphic description of the various acts or perversions in the petition to maintain propriety and decorum. However, in the cross examination of the petitioner, the details have been brought out, which are more than sufficient to grant her a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:
Per contra it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/husband that the only act of cruelty or perversion alleged to have been committed by the respondent/husband is that he had wounded/injured the petitioner’s lips when he kissed her. This incident, according to the learned counsel by no stretch of imagination can be found to be an act of cruelty entitling the petitioner to a decree of divorce.
Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “the petitioner is certainly entitled to divorce on the ground of physical cruelty as she had been subjected to sexual perversions by the respondent/husband against her will. Hence in these circumstances we find that the family court went wrong in dismissing and so the order needs to be interfered with.”
Hence, the order in O.P.No.1588/2014 is set aside and the petitioner/wife granted a decree of divorce by which the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnised on 23/08/2009 will stand dissolved. Consequently, Mat. Appeal No.65/2020 is allowed and the order in O.P.No.1184/2017 is set aside.
