The bench at Kerala High Court, said that happy mood family photographs not sufficient to represent the happy married life. As the husband provided the photographs to show the happy married life.
Wife alleged the husband for ill-treatment at matrimonial house. She also alleged that she was asked to participate in perverted sex against her wish.
Wife also alleged that, husband was forcing “her parents to sell the property which was allotted to her share in the will executed by her parents”. In her allegations, she also mentioned two dates of Dec 2005, and claimed that she was manhandled on these dates for the share in the property.
The husband in his reply said that, he had neither demanded patrimony nor had forced her parents to sell the property. He also said that, his wife left the matrimonial home in Dec 2005, without any valid reason. The husband denied all the allegations, and requested dismissal of the application.
The husband also presented few photographs in happy mood, as a proof to show that the family was living happily. In that, bench questioned the photographs and had opinion that such photographs does not reflect that the couple were living together happily. The bench said:
“Though the photographs may reflect that the couple was in a happy mood, that does not reflect as to how they were living together.”
Mat.Appeal.No. 51 of 2012
The bench at Kerala High Court in the matter of Anish Jacob, considering all the facts, granted the divorce to the couple. The bench has also not found any chance of reunion between the couple in the future. The bench said:
“Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, when the Family Court had placed reliance upon sufficient material to arrive at a finding that the husband had ill-treated his wife, which amounts to mental and physical cruelty, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding of fact. There is no perversity or illegality in the said finding warranting any interference. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and the fact that the matrimonial tie had been irretrievably broken and there is no chance for a re-union, we don’t think it necessary to interfere with the judgment of the Family Court.”
