K MUHAMMA LATHEEF S O K SATNUDHEEN Vs. NISHATH
LAWS(KER)-2003-3-64
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on March 11,2003

K.MUHAMMA LATHEEF, S/O K.SAINUDHEEN Appellant
VERSUS
NISHATH, D/O P.MAMMAD, PILLIKKAL AMSOM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Husband is the appellant. He is assailing the decree for dissolution of the marriage. The parties got married on 30-3-1997. Thereafter on 28-7-1998, both of them were separated. They are living separately since then. During the subsistence of the marriage, within 5 months of separation, the appellant / husband got remarried. He is having a child in the new wedlock. This has come to light when he was examined in the court below.
(2.) When they were living separately, the respondent / wife filed a suit seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty on the part of the appellant. She had complained of physical and mental cruelty. The court below considered that aspect. But the Court below was much concerned with the attitude of the appellant / husband in getting remarried within 5 months of separation. If, during the subsistence of a valid marriage the husband had remarried another, necessarily, that will be a mental cruelty towards the first wife, even though that is not the cruelty alleged in the petition. Merely because the appellant was willing to cohabit with the respondent while continuing the second marriage, there was no reason to court out the respondent, denying her a decree for dissolution of marriage. The court below had taken note of the facts revealed in the examination of the appellant that the appellant had married again and was having a child in that marriage. That marriage is happily going on. If the respondent is foisted against the appellant, it may result in disharmony in that marriage life as well. If the respondent is not willing to be a cowife with another for the appellant, she cannot, in such circumstances, be compelled to live with the appellant. She, has to seek a life of her own. She is now aged only 23 years. This is an apt period when she can find out a new life.
(3.) In such circumstances, we are of the view that there is no reason to revers the decree taking into account not only the future of the parties to this case, but also that of the second wife and the child born in that wedlock.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.