If you have reached these pdf links other than through the designated, please be aware ...

This page contains personal writings of Jijo Punnoose. Some of which are sensitive and may not be palatable to every reader.

A reader would find, all the other articles by this author, technical and scientific in nature. For instance ... https://www.navodayastudio.com/3d-imaging-principles-ch-4 https://www.navodayastudio.com/grahic-novel

But not so here. It is cautioned that unless the reader has had some spiritual foundation, these articles would seem absurd. Because, spirituality is of a domain beyond the rational mind.

Jijo here dear Johny.

This is to inform you that Liza has obtained a divorce decree at The Superior Court of Justice in Toronto terminating her matrimonial status. But, as you know, The Sacrament of Marriage is eternal and stands valid in The Court of God … and hence, no court on earth has any jurisdiction on it.

Well; this matter is between Liza, myself & God. Yet, the additional reason I write you this letter is to confirm to you that, you shall always remain my dear brother despite what Liza could get a court at Toronto to pronounce.

With love. Jijo

P.S. (ഇതു ചാവ ദേ ാ ഷ ം ആു കേ െ ാ . പലരും ഇു ഇതിനു തുനിയുു. അവർ ൊ െ ആയി പ ാ ർ ഥ ി ാ ം ) This is for Bindu too. May God Bless Your Family.

======

Jijo here dear Leena.

This is to inform you that Liza has obtained a divorce decree at The Superior Court of Justice in Toronto terminating her matrimonial status. But, as you know, The Sacrament of Marriage is eternal and stands ever valid inThe Court of God … and hence, no court on earth has any jurisdiction on it.

Well; this matter is between Liza, myself & God. Yet, the additional reason I write you this letter is to confirm to you that, you shall always remain my dear sister despite what Liza could get a court at Toronto to pronounce.

With love. Jijo

P.S. (ഇതു ചാവ ദേ ാ ഷ ം ആു കേ െ ാ . പലരും ഇു ഇതിനു തുനിയുു. അവർ ൊ െ ആയി പ ാ ർ ഥ ി ാ ം ) This is for Gregory too. May God Bless Your Family.

Note:- Below, I am giving documents for your reference. They are not relevant now. Maybe, you can go through them later. These I have filed away for posterity. https://twitter.com/LizInToronto https://intunewithlife.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/not-transformed/ 20th February 2014 HAPPINESS is finding my way to Toronto and being myself https://intunewithlife.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/all-over-again-every-time/ 2nd February 2014. HAPPINESS is realizing that it is alright to live for myself after all these years. https://twitter.com/LizInToronto https://intunewithlife.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/not-transformed/ 20th February 2014 HAPPINESS is finding my way to Toronto and being myself https://intunewithlife.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/all-over-again-every-time/ 2nd February 2014. HAPPINESS is realizing that it is alright to live for myself after all these years. Year 2007

The first communication I wrote Liza was the birthday wishes on my gift to her - the book Contact by Sagan. It was just after the bride-seeing ceremony and just before our betrothal, for her 21st birthday on 02 August1986.

The second writing I gave to her was 'family prayers' with footnotes during the months following our marriage when we were staying alone at Mahalingapuram. She was feeling 'inadequate' since she suddenly realized she hadn't memorized that which was expected of every 'good catholic child'. She had never been taught morning and evening prayers which every keralite catholic family recited before the portrait of the Sacred Heart of Jesus consecrated in their home (Instead, Lza's family members were used to reading The Word Of God - lead by Amma). I, since I was practically without any activity those days and waiting for her return from her Guindy Engineering classrooms, volunteered to compile a set of necessary prayers. It was mostly what we prayed at home .. . Mysteries (for rosary), Angelus Domini, etc., in malayalam, which I knew by heart.

The Third. It was during film Kadathanadan Ambadi's court cases - when the indomitable Kerala High Court Judge, Chettur Sankaran Nair invited our company Navodaya to take over Sajan's said film made with monies of many poor depositors. And our fight with Sajan went unto the Supreme Court - that was when I remember writing Liza a remarkably long serious letter. It was the final months of her pregnancy - February to May 1988 to be exact, when I did frequently see many other civil court disputes as we waited for the hearing of our case against Sajan to come up on the assigned dates. In a civil court, I noticed, 70% of all disputes listed and taken up for a day's hearing would be on Lease & Rent. Boring sessions on tenant vs/. landlord arguments … and tiresome property disputes. Even the court personnel would be yawning. Then would suddenly come something that would make every sleepy attendee sit up and take notice … Family Disputes! … mostly custodial fight for children. The monetary amounts involved would be pittance, but the emotional value would daze even the most hardened bench of Judges. I remember 4 instances of such cases as we waited for our many hearings at various courts. One had a child coming and disposing against its mother. The father, who had the custody and obviously coached the child (a 6 yr old boy) what to say, had difficulty in hiding his pleasure as the mother looked stunned at what her child said about her. The rest of us in the room were looking back and forth between these three characters - father, mother and the child - perplexed as to what to make out of this. This was true for the 2 Judges too. That made me realize that Judges too are human - despite a life long sense of judgement they had acquired in their career for discerning between the legal and the illegal. Evidently, those templates of theirs were failing here. And, being an emotive issue, the hearing was taking disproportionately longer time without reaching anywhere. It was definitely a lose-lose situation for all - the father, the mother, the child, the judges … and the rest of us waiting for our cases to come up. [But one observation my brother Josmon did correctly make. Everybody in the audience (we included) lost their impatience and preoccupation with our own case as the 'family drama' like a magnet drew the bystanders into its emotive spell. That was a filmmaker speaking]. I remarked that the insensitivity of the parents displayed so publicly, was indeed disgusting. Then Advocate Siby (I forgot his sire name) the Receiver for Kadathanadan Ambadi said ….. this is nothing compared to what occurred sometime back here in the same High Court. In the midst of a case hearing, a father suddenly grabbed the child and ran out of the court hall …. followed by a screaming mother. It went unto the parking lot where the mother struggled to prevent him from leaving with their child. He said the incident was reported in major malayalam dailies. Chief Justice Venketachaliah was heading the 3 member vacation court I remember when the first hearing of Kadathanadan Ambadi came up in Supreme Court, Delhi. I was sitting with Senior Advocate - good old Subramaniam Potti who represented us, while Sajan and his gf Sasi sat with the famous young K.K. Venugopal who represented Saj Films. Sajan was pleading for a stay order Chettur had pronounced in our favor. The hall was packed … crowded as in Kumbhmela or Makaravilakku. 20 cases listed for hearing and 10 carried over from the previous day …. all of them listed 'urgent' for the summer vacation court. One among that was ours … pleading the public cause of lakhs of impoverished pensioners waiting for justice. Another was the infamous Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly ruckus where the MLAs were lathi charged out during a vote to prove a Jayalalitha majority against Janaki. Their pleading was to stay the TN Assembly Speaker's decision. Such were the cases for the day … Property disputes from Marwada and Share Allocation disputes from Gujarat all worth crores in value. With so much at stake everybody was on razor thin patience … anxiety was written on every face as to whether their case would be heard or not that day. Every eye occasionally scanned the case number digital clock that kept moving fast as the CJ speeded up the process in every case by cutting down the arguments from the litigants and speedily disposing … with a call 'NEXT'. If they argued any further, the litigants would find their case re- posted by the CJ to a regular court after vacations. With an average of 20 minutes for each case, ours listed at around 9th (after the previous day's pending 10) had a very good chance to be heard that day … there was still an hour of court time left. Suddenly there came in the case #8 before ours. A mother from Haryana trying to get a restraining order against her separated spouse who had visitation rights to their 8 year old daughter. "…. what is so urgent about this case it warrants to be heard now? .. after all, this dispute between the parents has been going on for 3 years …. that is what from your submission we gather" remarked the CJ. "Your Honor, the father by his rights shall take away the child tomorrow … because the summer holidays start in 24 hours. It is urgent you stop this …. we have new proofs that the young one would be scarred for life if this is not prevented" dramatically shouted the counsel representing the mother. He was waving some private detective reports that proved the father's appalling newly discovered characteristics. Thats when the opposing counsel jumped up with denial shouts and started the distribution of happy photographs taken during the child's previous summer with its father, ….. and started reading out the transcription of a recorded phone conversation that the child had made to the father against its mother. Stunned silence in the packed hall as everybody forgot what business they were there for. Even with the characters in the case absent at the court, the scenes that took place at their home - scenes which graphically portrayed the fury of the parents and the agony of the child, was being enacted in front of all of us by the advocates from both sides. The CJ and his two colleagues were absolutely silent as they passed between themselves the photographs, reports and voice transcriptions. All eyes and ears were on the arguing counsels. As the court hour was ending, everybody in the hall was up on their feet - partly out of curiosity for the counsels' arguments and partly due to anxiety as to what day would one's own case be posted next. Our hearing didn't come up that day. But I went to the hotel room to write Liza a painful letter. Before explaining the family drama, my narrative for the day included the daily events. I used to keep Liza posted of everything those days. [It also had a tangential context in its relevance since Sajan's gf Sasi (Prabha Chechi's sister) was a divorcee whose daughter Sanjana was Liza's friend. Sanjana & her brother Anand would subsequently earn fame & notoriety as offsprings with a troubled upbringing]. My letter I remember ended with the words "…. thank God, our children are spared from such trauma". I wrote this under the presumption that WE belong to the majority of fair-minded married couples who were responsible parents. THEM - a minority of self-centered spouses making themselves irresponsible parents. It may have been true those days. Quarter of a century hence, almost all WE have become THEM.

Liza rang the doorbell here at #20 (old #15) Palat Sankaran Rd. Mahalingapuram on the 20th of January 2007 at around 11 am. I was alone here then, composing 'Psalm 125 God the Fortress for His People' on Garageband. I opened the door and she walked in to serve a divorce application. She may not have known, but I did having gone through my diary entries, that this was exactly the day 20 years ago she had rushed-in excitedly from her hostel at Guindy to see me here, as I had reached Madras that very morning from Cochin. I remember her happy face on seeing me. I remember all those days from thence she started going to college from here. I would wait to see my wife coming back from classes … she would be like a butterfly colorfully fluttering in …. either in that off-white gilt-speckled chudidar with its matching green leaf printed dupatta, or the red/black batik print salver kameez. I would have the cook made a cold lassi kept ready for her. But on 20 Jan 2006 she refused the drink I myself made and kept ready for her. I refused to accept the notice and told her I shall sit smiling and silent, if she had anything else other than the topic of divorce to talk about. She realized that she may as well be talking to a blank (smiling) wall. She kept the letter on the teapoy and stood up to leave. I told her that such a document was sacrilegious to be kept under the gaze of the Sacred Heart of Jesus up above in that room …. and …. with adequate composure I told her that I am tearing it up in front of her as a sign of my determination not to open and read it. She walked out as I tore up the cover with its contents.

To Jijo Punnosse, 20 Palat Sankaran Road, Mahalingapuram, Chennai 600034. 1.2.2007 Sir, Under instructions from my client, Liza Paul, Block IV, 64. V.B Garden, Chembumukku, Cochin 682030, I address you as follows: th That my client has married you on 14 September 1986 at the St. Mary’s Basilica, Ernakulam. Both of you are Christians (Catholics) by religion. In the wedlock my client had given birth to a daughter on 28.6.1988 at Sushrusha Nursing Home, Ernakulam, who is now aged over 18 years.

My client instructs me that ever since the day of the marriage, she was subjected to mental cruelty and torture of an unbearable degree from you, your parents and other members of your family. After the marriage my client was staying with you at you house at Mahalingapuram and their later moved to Karpagam Gardens, Chennai till November, 1991. However, you were not providing for her or taking any responsibility towards her as a husband should do. My client instructs me that she was subjected to innumerable instances of severe mental cruelty meted out to her which she does not want to recount at the present instances since you are fully aware of the kind of life she was forced to live in her matrimonial home and no useful purpose will be served by raking up the past.

My client further instructs me that she was forced to live at the mercy of your parents and other members of your family since you were not available for any of her emotional, physical or financial needs. You were totally irresponsible in your conducts towards my client and your daughter and had, by your conduct and continued mental cruelty and torture forced her to leave the matrimonial home and come away to Cochin with her daughter.

Through a brief attempt at reconciliation was made at the instance of members of the fami8ly and you had resided together at providence grove, Kochi from October 1993 to September 1994,no good came out of it and you had left your wife and daughter to go back to Chennai. The marriage had taken no efforts to make nay provisions for my client or her daughter.

My client instructs me that her daughter having attained the age of majority, she does not find any reason to put up with your desertion and cruelty any more. All her attempts to solve the problems without confrontation have proved futile. Since the marriage has broken down irretrievably and no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the relationship, my client instructs me to call upon you to join her in preferring an application for a decree of divorce by consent failing which she will be constrained to approach the Family Court for a decree of divorce on the grounds available to her.

-1- This submission is made by Jijo Punnoose presently resided at Mahalingapuram, th Chennai; on the 19 of February 2007. This letter I am treating as one which could be submitted to a Judicial authority at a future date. Hence, I affirm, I am fully conscious to put down only facts in this document - facts, (other than my mental feelings) that can be corroborated by at least one person from among a group of persons listed at the end of this letter.

Dear Ms. Anu Sivaraman,

This has reference to your registered legal notice of 1st February 2007 and the subsequent phone conversation I had with you. As said, I am sorry to make your acquaintance under such unpleasant circumstances. Yet, since the legal formalities dictate this, I am herby replying to your notice. I had verbally conveyed my response to her suggestion of an amicable divorce settlement to my th dear wife (now your client) Liza during our last meeting on 20 Jan 2007 when she had come here to meet me. Now that you have asked me to put it down officially on paper, I am writing it out here in the form of this letter. I believe this would suffice as a legal rejoinder though it has not been drafted or vetted by on attorney at law.

-2- Dear Ma’am, for us catholics the fundamental point about this subject `marriage divorce’ is that It is impossible. Because, it is not rooted on man’s law. It is a sacrament ordained by God. In human legal terms, a marriage may be seen as a contract/ agreement made by two persons. But for us it is more than that. It is a `covenant’ between 3 persons – the husband, the wife and God. Now, a covenant is not part of our modern civilized society. God had adopted this from traditional tribal laws when there existed no courts of law to enforce agreements. It was always based on one’s spoken word. The speciality of a covenant as against an agreement is that `It is irrevocable’- meaning; even if the terms of the agreement fail, even if any (or both!) of the participants in the understanding back out, still the covenant remains! And, the remaining person/persons (if any) bound by that covenant cannot withdraw. In the case of marriage, since it is a covenant, citing un- sustainability of the marriage does not hold up as a valid reason for winding it up or breaking it. Hence from childhood we are brought up on a faith that however difficult the marriage turns out to be (of course, marriage is definitely more of great happinesses than great difficulties), one has to keep on smiling from the heart, as one move from one difficulty to another. This is childhood learning. But as an adult today I am fully convinced of that. This is because I have recently seen how the third (and almost always silent) partner in the covenant - viz; God,

-3- keeps HIS part of the terms (keep smiling and keep moving-on through difficulties) as He does His best to sustain every family along with it’s offsprings, even though many of us husbands and wives turn out to become impossible characters these days.

I believe that would explain my stance on the topic of `divorce on mutual consent’. Even if I want to, I can’t. I had forfeited such a right even as while taking the marriage wow. And as for the question `Do I want to ?’-it had never ever enforced my mind for the simple fact that I love my wife and my child as dearly as I always had. Towards this I am enclosing here with a copy of the submission (*attach-I) I made to the church authorities of our diocese (you may say it is the religious equivalent to your family court) in August 1996. You may be able to ascertain that it is as per the one filed in the Basilica’s records of August 1996. The purpose of that submission then was to plead the Bishop’s office for talking personally to my Achachan - my father- in-law, Liza’s father, Mr John Paul Kattikaren, who had always been an active lay participant of the church council in it’s affairs. This attach-I would show that my stance has not changed between then and now. Also to correct Liza’s notion (as expressed by her in our last meeting) that I had filed a 'marriage annulment petition' in church in 1996. [You may be aware that catholic church cannot grant divorce. It can `anull’ a marriage if it is shown that the marriage

-4- was not valid when it took place; for rare reason such as - say; a spouse was insane even before marriage; but not subsequently]. To state the truth, sincerely, I was taken aback with this suggestion of a divorce which was first st brought up in this month of jan 2007 and now notified by your letter dated 1 Feb 2007. Because, at no instance durning the countless mediation efforts and marriage counseling sessions [starting January 1992 to as September 2006 - yes, I admit ; it has been a long time !] this suggestion had ever come up. Also with some recent developments in our family life, I was hoping that a reconciliation would ot last occur. I shall come to this topic later in this letter.

Now I have to reply to the charges raised in your letter/legal notice.

[Dear Ms. Anu; Madam, may I state here that I don’t hold this personally against you . As an advocate and a professional, I know you are only doing a duty. I realize that the terms mental cruelty, torture, `not providing for’ & ` desertion’ that are repeatedly mentioned in your letter are part of the legal terminology and the procedure necessary in establishing one’s case . I am replying to this only because formality necessitates so.]

During the five years following our marriage (which you have mentioned in your notice as 1986 to 1991; correctly) our married life was -5- very, very harmonious. We were staying alone here in Mahalingapuram, Madras (It was not yet Chennai then) where I had purchased a house in 1984. My family runs a chain of entertainment activities and I was then (1986 to 1991) in charge of our business operations and offices in Madras. My parents and other family members were at Kakkanad, Cochin (It had not become Kochi, then). We have a house there and a studio. My Pappa and my brother Jos were running the Kerala operations. During this time, Liza’s parents, her sister Leena, brother Johny were living in Ernakulam town itself at Kattikaren house at Kombara. Liza had completed her last year engineering course after our marriage while rd staying here at Madras in my residence with me. (She was a 3 year student at Anna university engineering college at Guindy, Madras when our marriage took place). And after the birth of our child, Aarcha, she did a two year software course in computer here at Aptech while staying with me. In all these, I not only supported her financially but also physically and emotionally. For instance, Liza did her computer course when our child was of age 2 to 3. In the child’s first year, the infant was taken care by Liza’s mother at Cochin. During the age of 2&3, Aarcha was with us in Madras. Unlike at my Kakkanad house which was a mansion that employed a dozen house staff, we never had servants in Madras other than the driver & the watchman and the cook. Liza had an aversion for

-6- baby sitters. Hence, I was in charge of our child during afternoon and evening hours which was the timing for Liza’s classes. I use to break off from my office by noon everyday, take care of Aarcha till about 7 p.m, and go with Aarcha to collect her mother. The 3 of us would have dinner mostly outside at restaurants around Cathedral road - Woodlands, Baahar or Savera after Liza’s classes at Aptech (near Music Academy at Cathedral Rd.) I am certain that Liza’s colleagues and my colleagues of that time would remember this as they have witnessed the events at close quarters for two years. And it is not that I am considering this as a sacrifice from my side. For, Liza on her part used to come to my offices during day times and supervise the entire accounts. Most of the mornings she used to be in the office with the child. One of us parents would take turn to play with the child out in the backyard of our office at the posh Anugraha apartments which had a garden with play-pen & swing. We would not entrust the child to the driver even though the person was sometimes available. On days when Liza had no classes, she would be in my office when I took care of Aarcha at home. Now, I am sure Liza would remember the time when she was bed-ridden with a severe spine problem. This was when Aarcha was an infant at Cochin with her grandma. I personally had to assist Liza in basic body functions and needs. There was no servants or relatives around. This is a small thing expected of any spouse. For me, it is a rare occasion which I am happy to remember. The point is that, God never gave me even a minor ailment which would have made Liza cherish to remember.

-7- Contrary to what you are suggesting Ms Anu, Liza never had the opportunity to live under the same roof with my parents (or with any of my relatives for that matter). Whenever we were at Cochin (it was still Cochin then) both of us stayed at Liza’s house because it was right within the city; as against my house at the suburbs. Even today all of Liza’s family members would readily agree that I have stayed a lot, lot more days at her home than the ones she would have stayed at mine in Kakkanad. Now, the only exception to this is a European group tour we made in 1987 whence Liza and myself were with my parents and family members for about 40 days. It was a tour (which means a day-to-day journey with many people). Though I was with her Liza was totally distressed and silent the entire period. I vouch that this was the only unhappy period in the first 5 years of our married life. I got the feeling that she felt neglected because I was also attending to others. [And it struck me that Liza, her siblings and her parents, despite having lots of relatives, had always been alone as a family with minimal social contacts. This was true while in Kuwait - where Achachan had his job till the '80s. It was true for their domicile in Cochin too]. Anyway, this unpleasant episode happened just after Liza’s completion of her engineering course and just before Aarcha’s birth. During the ensuing years it was totally forgotten.

-8- Ms Anu, being a lawyer and looking for hard facts, you may ask me how my above words on a near-blissful married life be verified. Especially since it is totally opposite to a life as accused in your notice. Well, I have two things here. ONE - A number of persons among a list of people mentioned at the end of this letter who knew us closely during this period. They would remember specific happenings in our life to support what I have said above. And, more importantly, I am very certain that they won’t have any single occurrence to state which would suggest a stressed married life. What more? - I am very sure even Liza won’t be able to bring anybody who would recall witnessing a stressful moment in the first 5 years of our married life - because it was just not there! TWO - There are two letters enclosed herewith (* attach-II). They were written to me by Liza towards the end of the period you had mentioned in your notice - August 1991, by which time Liza and our child left `Karpagam Gardens’. Yes we had shifted to Karpagam Gardens, Adayar (to a house rented out near Aarcha’s new school) in April 1991. There was no phone connection there. Hence Liza used to write to me regularly when I was out of Madras. These letters denote such a period. And please note that they were written consecutively within a weeks time. Before I go into the topics within the letters, may I say something in general. In these days I was a

-9- very disorganized person. Even though I cherished many things (Books for one; such letters and greeting cards from Liza, another) I could never keep memorabilia safely tucked away. My filing habit was terrible. On the contrary, Liza being an organized person, she used to store away very neatly all these which she cherished. She even used to keep the jasmine flowers I bought her every evening - even after they had long dried up! Now coming back to these letters, I have to first tell you that these letters were not an exception - but a rule. Liza used to write to me such letters over and above the phone conversations we regularly had. These two letters were written while I was one month in North India for Bible TV Serial production. I was moving around places (like Ajmer suburbs) where phone communication was difficult and hence Liza had to be at our office at a time previously agreed upon - so that I can call and speak to her. (Hence she writes about a bungle - a day mix up, when she was supposed to phone from Madras to a place I was waiting for her call). I consider it today a miracle - that these two letters had survived! Because they are the only ones today with me among the very many communications we have had in these near blissful period. (Note-Liza had never ever written or phoned me after these period. Yes, things became that bad! I shall be coming to that. A reader of this is entreated to bear with me). It was only many years later that I accidentally found these letters in my baggage of things taken to north-India! It was sheer accident that these survived. Normally I would not have preserved them.

-10- Now, entering the contents of these letters - If you read between the lines of these letters you would see warmth, affection, flippancy, exuberance and jovial humor which were the characteristics of Liza, my wife, those days. You would notice that it refers in flippant terms about the meeting with my brother (Jos), my sister (Jisha) my sister’s mother-in-law (molychechi) etc. A casual description of accompanying my father (papa) to see his sister, a nun (mariammaunty) at her convent, and again to the place where my parents were then staying (Tambaram, a Madras suburb). Liza also talks about a letter from her mother to me which she was enclosing. [That letter was my mother-in-law’s advice to me. She advised that there was a place collect `Potta’ near her home town Chalakudy, where spiritual retreats were becoming famous. She suggested that for Shooting the Bible Stories I should be getting guidance from pastors like Naickamparambil, Panakkal & Vallooran at Potta, instead of attending Sociology & Biblical archaeology research short-courses at Israel & German universities. [I eventually did the Potta retreat even after doing Bible Research studies for the TV serial]. In her letters Liza also talks about her brother (Johny) who had come to Madras that time to enroll himself at coaching classes at Brilliant tutorials towards his entrance tests to an Engineering course. Since my young brother-in-law was staying at our resistance at Karpagam Gardens, I could be away from home those times without my wife and child being alone.

-11- Dear Ms Anu, do you see a tortured woman anywhere in these letters-both written within the duration of one week? Ah! You may doubt that this is an exception. But I can dispel any such doubts, with testimonies from people with integrity who have known Liza during these times. There were lots of celebrated people from film industry on that day in December 1990 when my father was elected president of south India film chamber of commerce after a keenly fought contest with sajan Varghese (of Saj films/ Orient Finance & Exchange/ Ssj Flight caterers) for which Liza was activity campaigning for her father-in-law. People do remember her even for her thanksgiving speech. There was another gathering at a five-star hotel were senior industry leaders (not film industry) and financiers were called to an inauguration of our venture into Amusement Parks and Rides Engineering. Liza being an engineer, was spelling out the salient points (with the help of a brief given by pappa in her hands). There occurred some benign-heckling by a senior state administrator to test her courage. `The heckler’ even today remembers with awe how the 25 year old girl put aside the brief and answered his questions nonchalantly. There was a musician called Dilip who played keyboard for the music of my Bible serial. He fondly remembers how my wife and 2 year old daughter came day after day to the studio. And he remembers everybody having a tough time getting the child off from playing havoc on his precious keyboard. (He later became famous as A.R. Rahman).

-12- Actor Kamal Hasan used to act-out while narrating to everybody a hilarious incident that occurred when Liza and myself went with Aarcha to invite him and his family for the wedding of my youngest sister. Ms Anu you ask Liza; She would know. And these are not incidents in isolation. Quite a few of them are recorded as photographs and video coverage.

At this point any reader of this narrative of mine may ask “If all was so well, then what went wrong?” The period (mentioned in the notice that I am answering), as our stay in Karpagam Gardens (Adayar) is from April to November 1991, where we had shifted to the other end of Madras so as to live in a rented house as against the house we owned at Mahalingapuram. The reason for this is that the place was at a walking distance to Aarcha’s new school - her first school - (which Liza refers to as Abacus in her letter). And this shift occurred at a critical phase in our life. Me and my people had taken up two projects simultaneously 1. An Amusement park project at Madras city outskirts, Tambaram (where Liza mentions in her letter she had visited along with my father) 2. Bible TV Serial production in North India (where Liza wrote me the letters mentioned). Both projects were initiated, organized, administrated and accounted from the corporate office (at Anughaha, next to Taj Hotel, Nungabakkam) which Liza and myself were running during the years up to 1991. By then the staff strength had grown very much in anticipation to the projects. We had a lot of colleagues working as managers, engineers, creative talents and designers along with us. Because I had become

-13- the `Serial Director’ (with many `episode directors’ under me), I had to move constantly to Bombay (it had not become Mumbai, then) and keep traveling to parts of Rajastan deserts during the Bible shooting. Liza had taken over my Madras office responsibilities in addition to what she was doing. My Father and brother stopped their business activities at Cochin and after delegating functions in Kerala to managers, shifted their stay from Kakkanad to Tambaram so as to supervise the site construction work.

End August 1991-that was the time Liza had written these two letters. In the first week of September, while I was still in Bombay for Hindi voice dubbing, I realized that Liza had stopped going to office. Over phone she gave me a vague reason as to tiredness and completion of her computer course project. And by the second week of September she had left to Cochin with our daughter Aarcha for the vacation (the train tickets she mentions booked for th the 11 of Sept in her letter). By this time I had set myself a target - to th complete all Bombay works of the current six episodes by 12 of September. th For, I had agreed to meet my wife and child in Cochin on the eve of our 5 th wedding anniversary - Sept 13 . I had to drive the entire sound recording crew to exhaustion and just about managed to complete the first six episodes of the TV serial by 4’o clock in the morning of sept 13. I remember ‘a photo finish’ in making to the Santa Cruz airport from the studio in Bandra just in time to catch the East West Airlines Bombay Cochin flight at 6 am.

-14- [These events are etched in my mind - because in the ensuing months I had repeatedly gone over the incidents, again and again, in my attempt to comprehend what had gone wrong. Even if it is tedious reading, I hope the reader bears this. I always thought I had been a good husband - but apparently not good enough; considering the role God had given me to play] th It was a Friday Sept 13 that I reached Cochin in the morning by 8 am, after about a month in North India. From the airport at wellington island I went straight to Liza’s home at Kombara to meet Liza, Aarcha, Achachan and Amma who were joyous to receive me. (Liza’s brother Johny was still in Madras at our home attending coaching classes for engineering entrance tests. Liza’s sister was studying at Alleppey medical college where my mother’s brother was one of her teachers). I stayed there at my in-law’s place (as always) and celebrated th the Saturday of our 5 wedding anniversary. It was so full of happiness to everybody. It didn’t even occur to me to ask Liza why she didn`t attend office the previous week. Infact, when I booked my train tickets to Madras for reaching there on Monday morning Liza said she is also coming. She said she would rather leave Aarcha back at Cochin till the child’s school vacations are over. So I call our manager Rajan at our Cochin city office and have tickets booked for me and Liza for Alleppey-Madras-Express leaving Ernakulam- South 4.30 on Sunday evening. And what a wonderful Sunday it was! We all went for the morning mass at the Infant Jesus convent chapel near Liza’s house.

-15- At the end of a relaxed Sunday, Achachan and Amma started off for attending a marriage. Aarcha also got into the car Achachan was driving. It became very convenient for Liza and myself - for the child won’t see us leaving for Madras without her! Liza and myself shall be leaving for the railway station in the car that came from my Kakkanad studio to drop us.

Now something got very wrong on our journey to the south Railway station. Liza got a severe abdomen ache. I insisted on canceling the journey. But she insisted that we should proceed ….. and that the pain shall wear off. I tried to contact a doctor. But then, in those days when cellphones were absent, I suddenly realized that Ernakulam town can get very deserted on a Sunday afternoon! Now there were Mampally doctors - relatives of Liza; and Doctor Paruthickan who was my relative. The Mampally clinic and residence were locked (we found) and Dr Paruthickan was not at his residence. At that one critical hour before Alleppey-Madras-Express leaves Ernakulam, I just couldn’t decide what to do. I was in panic. It was providence that I told the driver to drive to the Lotus Club near south junction - and there I find Dr Paruthickan playing cards on the top-floor card room! He came running down the 5 flight of stairs with me to the car to examine Liza. We immediately drove to the nearby Kunjalu’s nursing home before

-16- the appendix would rupture - that was what Doctor Paruthickan suspected [the only other time in my life, I had my heart reaching throat, was when the white water Ride Raft overturned in our Amusement park with three adults and three children on board]. Achachan, Amma and Aarcha were back soon. Achachan, Amma and my sister Jiss (who along with her husband are the god-parents to my daughter; they reside at Azad road, Cochin) waited outside the operation theatre during surgery. Meanwhile I took Aarcha to the Basilica (where we were married and Arrcha was baptized). I prayed very hard during the surgery. Even today I remember the 3 year old child’s expression as to what this furore is all about!?

Well now; why should I create a furore writing this here about an incident which passed-off harmlessly? For one thing - As I reach Madras after 3 days, I am met with utter chaos in the organization. I am caught between two projects and I do not know which way to turn. For another thing - I had this brooding sense that Liza is feeling neglected on her recuperation bed at Cochin. The answers I receive over phone while enquiring about Liza’s condition are only monosyllables. Liza’s colleagues at our office did inform me that there had been two instances in the previous week (while Liza was in Madras office) where my father (pappa) reversed financial decisions Liza had implemented in the office. Once he had called up from the project site and instructed directly to the accountant. The second time he did visit the city office from project site and made changes in payment schedules. Papa's overruling went against the commitments

-17- Liza had made to some of the contractors. She lost face. What papa had did was unprofessional. And, this was done in public. Though no scenes were created, the colleagues felt Liza was agitated and hence had abstained from coming to the office. Now, I did not take this news with the seriousness it demanded. (though later, I did take it up with our project consultant Bicha sar/ Imbichammad to censure papa for overruling many of my managers - Liza included, and Bicha sar had to restrain me). My concern for the moment was in fire-fighting the crisis after crisis which had occurred in Liza’s absence. And I was angry that Liza had left the office unattended. It was my short coming. I admit. But given her physical condition and the fact that she was still in Cochin, I could only feel frustrated. And for two months I was in a daze trying to clear up things on two different projects of conflicting nature. Until then in our married life if we were physically separated, I would have spoken to her (or she would have spoken to me) over phone say; at least once in 3 days. This one month following her surgery I couldn’t speak to her even once. I had hardly any time to sleep. I could meet Johny only a few times … because, for most of the days I couldn’t reach Adayar for the night. I would go to my Mahalingapuram home for a few hours of nap.

Now I come to the 1991 October/ November months which is the time according to the legal notice Liza left Madras with our daughter. By mid October, Liza, Aarcha and Amma reached Madras. Amma took care of her for a week and returned to Cochin. Liza was very weak even to speak - and I hardly had the time. I remember once

-18- reaching late to take her for an appointment with the doctor (I got caught in a traffic jam because of Chief Minister Jayalalitha & Prime Minister Narasimha Rao's convoy). Liza was silent then. I also remember bringing the office computer and printer home one day as per Liza’s request, and setting it up near her bed so that she and a friend from Aptech could complete a project. Liza was smiling then. Yet, I could perceive some changes in Liza. After Amma’s leaving (Amma - Liza’s mother, Tessy paul), my mother (Ammachi, Baby Punnose) used to sent food from their place with a note (we had no phone connection in Adayar, Karpagam Gardens residence) that since Liza is sick even to cook, Ammachi is sending food for 3 of us and Johny. Liza started rejecting the food. It was always myself who used to drop and pickup Aarcha from school. After coming back from surgery, Liza started deploying Johny to take the child to the classes and bringing her back. Johny had to do this before and after his own study hours. And this had been building up for about a week and one day it broke-out into an argument. Before I come to that, I should also mention that this was the Deepavali season & Northeast monsoon season. Liza wouldn’t allow me to take Aarcha to see the `kollu’ at our Brahmin friend Suresh Kanthan's house. As a compromise I brought their children of Aarcha’s age group to my house and play with Aarcha.

One reason Liza cited was the rainy weather for not allowing Aarcha outside. Yes, Madras City can

-19- get really wet with rain during Deepavali time. There would be continuous down pour with atmospheric depression & cyclonic rain. One day there was a respite and I happened to be back early from office. I thought to take Aarcha out for a ride. Liza vehemently denied me from taking Aarcha out. She wouldn’t state the reason - and here brokeout the very first argument in our life. It was a shouting match. Disgusted, I got into the car and was about to leave in a huff. To make matters worse, the child rushed behind me into the car before I could close the door. Aarcha had been in all anticipation as I had been dressing her up with the promises of an ice cream during the trip. Liza was screaming after us when we started the car and left. We went for a round and returned back (after the promised ice cream) with in an hour.

Ms. Anu, you charge me all long cruelty in our married life. I would plead that there have been only two instances in our life where arguments had taken place and this was the first. And I do consider this cruel. I am guilty. I do own-up full responsibility for the sordid episode. Instead of exercising my rights to take my child out, I should have shown more sensitivity and tried to find out what Liza’s problem was. I realize today that her surgical wounds had turned sceptic and she had been under severe depression then. I did not know then that her wounds were in a bad shape. Instead, I was trying to make her understand (by shouting

-20- at her!) that it was paranoia to distrust me in taking care of our child. I also have another reason to feel self-disgust over this episode. I had dressed up Aarcha by standing her on the bed. Liza had come on the other side of the bed expressing her denial. As the first argument in our life started, what I see is a baffled 3 year old child pleading with her parents to stop. The child started running across the double cot bed, hugging one parent and then the other, with entreaties to stop the fighting. (“അാ ... അാ ... നിർതത് ...നിർതത്”). It was only when Aarcha tried to shut my big mouth with her tiny hands that I came to my senses and walked out - feeling much less than the human being I had considered myself to be.

While we are on this topic of domestic violence, (I consider argument as violence and regard them as cruelly which is as accused in the lawyer’s notice) I may as well note down the other instance that occurred in our life. It was during the period which the notice cites as October 93 to September 94 at Providence Grove, Kochi. Again the reason was the same. Whenever I requested both Liza and Aarcha to come out with me Liza would plead inconvenience on her part and deny my taking Aarcha out. In one instance it broke out into an argument. The mistake is mine. Once again I plead guilty of being insensitive. As the head of my family, I am the one who is expected first to set good examples. I failed in that. I cannot defend my mistake by citing the injustice meted out to me. That won’t make my wrong conduct change into a righteous behavior. Here again,

-21- I observed something that hit me hard. Our child, by then 5 years old, silently started moving away from her parents as the argument erupted. She was in tears as she took refuge near the portrait of the sacred Heart of Jesus kept on the dressing table. She then sobbed and hugged it. I think that shut my mouth. Also, I remember I had breathing problem after this altercation. Liza phoned and Achachan came from his home to take me to the nearby P.N.V.M.clinic.

Coming back, Ms. Anu, I am at the time where your notice mentions that Liza was forced to leave Chennai (Madras, then) with our 3&1/2 year old daughter, after 5 years of married life. I remember the day as either Nov 22 or 23; 1991. I would come to the exact circumstances … After that argument which occurred during one of the last days of October 1991, I found that there was no way to establish a communication with Liza. She simply wouldn’t talk to me. I remember my brother Jos, who was about to get married that time, had an accidental fall and cut his crown. Ironically it happened at Alleppey when he was visiting his prospective bride. I mentioned this to Liza to find her reaction for my plans to leave for Alleppey. She sat silent I dropped the idea of leaving Madras with her weak & alone (though Johny was still staying with us). So in the first week of November 1991, I phoned Liza’s parents to come to Madras and see for themselves that Liza had turned out to be a different person than the one I had known for the past 5 years. I was calling in

-22- desperation to have our relationship normalized but I suppose my insensitivity regarding Liza’s plight was evident. Amma, who may have noticed while she was in Madras after Lizas surgery, that I was more busy at the office than in attending to Liza, said that she was not coming, but that Achachan shall be coming within few weeks. The day Achachan came to our home in Adayar Karpagam th st Gardens (20 or 21 November 1991) I met him only in the evening when returning from office. He said to me point blank that he had already enrolled Johny in a hostel that day and booked tickets for Liza and Aarcha and himself for the next day to Cochin. He said Liza is very sick. I couldn’t disagree with that. And I found that Liza had packed and kept all her belongings and Aarcha's bags ready. It was myself and Johny who took Achachan, Liza and Aarcha to board the Madras Alleppey express to Cochin the next day evening. Other than my car, I had to call a jeep additionally from the construction site to carry all the belongings. After seeing them off, I dropped off Johny of his new hostel near Brilliant Tutorials. I had felt a relief then – a respite from the brooding silence at my home. But I suddenly realized that I am alone! Alone in my house. During the next days I tried phoning Liza at Cochin. Achachan kept telling me that Liza is too sick to come on the phone. Whenever I asked for Aarcha he said the child is playing outside or that she th is sleeping. So I reach Cochin on the 5 of December 1991 to find out what is wrong with Achachan now!

-23- th I find that I am unwelcome at that home. What a difference from Sept 15 when I was last time there at that home in Kombara! I had to go and stay in our company’s city office (a rented house near Ernakulam North). To my request over phone Achachan came to see me that night in his car. He told me not to come to their residence and that even if he is coming to see me he would not enter my premises. So, outside on the Arangatha Cross Road at 10’o clock in the night, Achachan stops his car and tells me that he cannot entrust his daughter, his son and his grand daughter to my care anymore - because their lives have been endangered. He was brief. And he left. I found my life going suddenly very dark in front of my very eyes.

At that point in time when I stood outside my office, seeing Achachan’s car’s tail lights disappear into darkness, I did not know whether the problem was with me or with the world I see outside of myself. Because, then I was not aware about a fact which years later a few of the mediators/ counselors (listed at the end) made known to me during counseling sessions for Liza and myself - That Liza had convinced her parents with forensic evidence (sic) that herselves, child Aarcha and Johny were being systematically poisoned with Arsenic.

It was only after December 5, 1991 when estrangement in my family could not be hidden from immediate family members, colleagues and friends, that my parents and other seniors became aware of my marital problem and

-24- came into the picture. I repeat, it was not as noted by you Ms. Anu in your letter accusing my parents and relatives having given a hard time to Liza, forcing her to leave with our child. Infact, the times we had lived in Madras, we have almost always been alone. Liza was always in change of our offices when I was in change of my company’s Madras operations. She was in change of finance and accounts please note: that she indicates this in her own letter (attach II). My office (where I have not stepped into for the past 8 years) informs me that the accounts department has still on file the cash vouchers for which Liza had signed when she herself used to draw money on our monthly family allowance. It is also informed that they have the bank records of all the monthly cheques I had mailed to Liza following our estrangement. This contradicts your accusation. As said, I don’t take this personally. I know this is only part of a divorce litigation.

I left my narrative at December 5, 1991. It would be only in the next march of 1992 that I would be seeing Liza and Aarcha next. As I was unwelcome at their home, I sought the assistance of Vayalar Ravi and Mercy Ravi (who is Achachan’s cousin) to accompany me to Kattikaren house at Kombara and urge Liza and Aarcha to come for the wedding of my brother. As soon as she saw me Aarcha rushed into my arms. My child did evidently miss me during these months. I remember Aachachan and Johny verbally restraining me from taking the child away

-25- the next thing I remember is Liza tearing out the screaming child from my embrace. As mentioned, I did not know then that Liza’s family members' concern was something any parent in any family would fear - the very lives of their loved ones! Today, I do not find fault in the way they reacted to my approaches. By then, since everybody had come to know of my family problem, my parents started to go to Liza’s house for meditation. I was not part of the process because of my emotional condition. After 1991, I have never been to Liza’s house when my parents were there. [To state a curious fact, even from 1996 to 1991, in the first five years after our marriage, it is only for the baptism day of Aarcha the one day I remember together with my parents at Liza's home. My parents since residing closely at Kakkanad must have visited my in-laws many many times. Yet strangely, I was not there at any of those times].

You have mentioned that my family members had tortured Liza by their behavior all through our married life. The fact is, it was only during the subsequent marriage counseling sessions (1993 to 2009) that Liza started referring to the conciliatory visits made by my parents, relatives and colleagues (post 1991) to her home as ‘harassments’. She pointedly use to complain this to the mediators and counselors who after 1991 came to mend our marriage. As I have written, I have no idea what the basis of this complaint is. I do not know. I cannot deny her allegation because

-26- I am not aware of what had transpired during my parents' or relatives' visits there. I believe Liza's mother (in the absence of her father today) would be able to give a correct picture. And it was she, Amma, Mrs. Jessy paul, who took the initiative to call me and to take both of us (Liza& myself) to the Divine Retreat Centre at Chalakudy for occasional marriage counseling by Rev Fr. George Panakkal and Rev Fr. Augustine Vallooran. This lasted from October 93 to September 94 as mentioned in your letter. There were many other mediators and counselors during this time. (I have listed). Even through today when I look back I see that their efforts may have been of no purpose and the exercises futile, I am touched by the concern all of them had shown. They had rendered selfless service to help a family in trouble. It was then that I got the assurance that I am not alone in my troubles, because there are always others who do care. It would be my duty to God to note down here that October 93 to September 94 was extremely important in giving me my spiritual foundation. It was here that I came to know that fame and wealth does not make the real success in life. It is only by taking up personal challenges (like my marriage problem) as God given, and trying to solve it with patience and allocation of maximum time that I can find success in life. The retreats at Divine Centre taught me that all my knowledge on Bible research and its studies were purely intellectual. I had missed the heart of the whole text. I only saw the trees but missed the forest. How this is relevant

-27- to this case for divorce, Ms Anu, I shall explain with the following metaphor. You would have seen the crucifix we Christians fix everywhere - on top of our institutions, in our homes and even on our person we wear it. As if is were a trademark. I too had considered it as an emblem. One of which (a cross) I had always worn around my neck. It was at this period in life I understood that “cross is not a mere symbol; but an attitude which you take up always”. By wearing a cross, you take on yourself `an attitude of acceptance of all difficulties that come your way’. Liza and myself were married on a September th 14 . And I find it not just a coincidence that for the catholic church, this day is the `Feast of the Holy cross’. I hope you shall be able to relate this to the beginning of my letter - about facing the difficulties in one`s marriage with a genuine smile from the heart.

Now I come to as of what happened during this period of October 93 to September 94 which you mention as `a brief period of reconciliation and as my leaving for madras without Liza & Aarcha’ permit me to contest that statement. The mediators & counselors of that period (they were not simultaneously involved. It was one after the other) told me to spend more time in Cochin with Liza and Aarcha. So we took up a Flat 7D at Providence Grove (at Kombara itself, near to Liza’s house) and stayed there. Even though my profession suffered, I used to take long leave from Madras

-28- and stayed at Providence Grove. Occasionally we drove down to Chalakudy for marriage counseling. While Liza went for a new job she had obtained at Cochin, and Aarcha went to school, I used to wait on weekdays alone in the flat for an opportunity to be with them. But Liza still would not allow Aarcha to be with me - even though the counselors whom she trusted had specifically told her that it was an injustice. Hence they in turn told me not to make an issue of it every time, but to be patient. At any opportunity when Aarcha had holidays, Liza used to sent the child to her home nearby. Yet, as per the advice of the counselor I would get occasions to interrupt that and quietly take my child out and return as soon as possible. I used to go as far as Trichur Zoo or Malampuzha Dam within a day. Once I even took her to Nilgiris and returned the next day. I had brought Aarcha twice to Chennai (By that time Madras had become Chennai) and returned in a few days time. I used to sent notes to Liza informing of my departure every time with Aarcha for, if I had spoken to her in advance she would not have allowed. In the duration of one year I would have taken Aarcha with me about a dezon times. Liza used to protest. * But the counselor seemed to brush-off her a apprehensions. So one day she stopped meeting the mediators and counselors. In October 94 when I came from Chennai, I found that she had moved all her items from the flat

*She used to refer to this as `kidnappings’- a cruelty which she was purposely subjected to.

-29- along with herself and Aarcha, back to her own home. When I went to see her at her residence, she told me that neither she nor the child is returning. At this point her parents seemed to concur with her decision. After waiting one month I had to vacate the flat and return to Chennai. (I didn`t know that I shall be next returning to Kombara only after a long time. Cochin would have become Kochi by then).

I should also mention here that at that time I noticed my mother-in-law who was active in the conciliatory efforts had become cold in her behavior to me. I had contributed to this by turning her out one day when she came to take Aarcha away on a holiday. (My mistake, I am sorry). Yet, it was only years later it was confided to me that Liza those days suspected the nature of the white powder, boric acid, that I had kept in my toilet kit for the treatment of ringworm infection. She had apparently taken it out for examination and told her mother that it was found to be a psychedelic chemical. (Though while in Madras when residing with me for 5 years, she had no suspicion as to whether this white powder could be heroin or amphetamine) I should cite here two other minor reasons which I think may have contributed to the failure of mediation efforts of the period October 93 to September 94. ONE - Liza had been maintaining a diary. She had always been. She had no hesitation of showing this to me during our goodtimes in the first 5 years. In this period of Oct 93 to Sept 94, I was alone in the flat during many day times. One day I happened to see her diary kept open before our dressing mirror with the entries made during the previous few days. It had some negative

-30- remarks about the counseling sessions themselves. I took a xerox copy of these pages and brought it to the attention of the counselor. I did not consider this as a secret or confidential matter. Apparently, the counselor also didn’t think so. So the person brought this out to Liza for correcting her impression on how she perceived others’ words and actions. And, … Liza was furious. She considered her privacy breached. The counselors pleas, that it was the intention behind the act and not the act itself that need be focused, could not pacify her. She stopped coming to that counselor. Since this action of mine didn’t serve any positive results, today I regret having taken a copy of my wife’s diary to a third party and thus hurting her sensitivity. TWO – A senior person who was counseling both of us during this period was once addressing some of Liza’s suspicions. (I think he was trying to catch the bull by the horns - for, he had boldly ventured into a territory of grave accusation) I heard him telling Liza “--- In the criminal justice system, it is always the motive that counts … more than the evidence itself. One has to establish the motive behind an act first. The whole burden of proof is secondary. For example, consider a woman who is accused of attempting to do- away with her son’s spouse. Now, if she is said to poison the food of her daughter-in-law, which she knows her son also could be consuming, the motive itself stands compromised---“. Liza stopped coming to see the counselor there after.

-31- Ms. Anu, your notice do remain silent after the period of October 94. I believe this is to imply that I have left Liza and Aarcha uncared for after that (“DESERTION”) I would like to correct this implication by submitting the events from October 94 to September 2006.

As of the time prior to 94, I had still kept on writing conciliatory letters to Liza after 94. Though she had never answered even once. (I have copies of most of my letters – Xerox copies – written to Liza after our estrangement, preserved with me today). * Since I could not go to Liza’s house, I had made attempts to meet my daughter in her school (Choice School at Thripunithura). Here, I made my predicament clear to the school authorities to avoid them getting into any future embarrassment. The staff did consult among themselves and then informed me that they do not want to become part of a sensitive situation. I did write a lot of letters to Aarcha too. But at that young age I suppose it was not given to her. For, I never got any letter from Aarcha either. Hence to convey messages on my behalf, between the period Oct 94 and August 96, with letters written by me to my child I had once deputed my sister Jiss (Aarcha’s godmother) and another time my Aunt Rajamma, Sr. Lincy (an Adoration convent Nun) to meet Aarcha. Both attempts begat extremely hostile reactions from Liza. I believe if would have been traumatic for the child too.

From October 94 to August 98 I have been residing at Chennai. During August 96 I had come down to Kochi to make fresh mediatory efforts. *I send her birthday cards too on all August 2nd s.

-32- That was the time I submitted (the attach-1) to Fr.Chiramel - the church’s judiciary in charge of family affairs. I am given to understand that he had twice called Achachan and Liza for consultations to his office at the Bishops house next to Basilica. He later informed me over phone that Liza was not interested in meeting me. During the above visit to Kochi, I met some of the earlier mediators. One of them, a relative of Liza (Amma's niece) told me that the basis of this problem is my family - my parents and relatives. I have to renounce my family ties before a solution can be arrived at. What the mediator told me was a reference made by Liza. It is a quotation from the New Testament. Jesus had said… The man leaves his father and mother and joins with his wife. I have heard Liza make this quotation to every mediator whenever they said that after marriage the wife is expected to live with her husband. Now, I did not know she meant it literally. I said I needed time to consider it before I left Kochi in August 96.

I took a decision soon and that was to retire from my profession. I was 40 years old then. I had been an early starter at an age of 21 and had seen the top even when I was a mere 24 old youth. So I had nothing to regret it God was asking to call it quits now at 40 years of age. My parents and family members were not happy about my decision. But I have been encouraged in this by friends who have been close to Liza and myself

-33- during the first five years of our marriage. They told me that Liza and Aarcha should be my first priority in life. And it took me two years to wind-up my professional responsibilities. I wound-up the film production activities (which had always been headed by me). I transferred the financial and organizational hub to one single business activity - viz; the Amusement Park which had by then become operational on the outskirts of Chennai in 1995. (The place where my parents and brother were staying as project site, had become their permanent residences). It took me two years because it was not that simple as it sounds. There were huge financial liabilities as I had made personal guarantees to IFCI & Bank Consortiums … which meant that I could not simply resign and go. There was resistance at every stage (from my relatives who were on the company board) when I made policy changes. But, after seeing that competent professionals are put in charge of these day-to-day operations, and ascertaining that I had enough funds to retire on, I was able to reach Kochi once again in August 1998.

I have been a resident at Kochi from 1998 August to 2006 May. I rented a house in Kochi. Vidya Soudham, #36/160, at Karakkamuri cross Road Eranakulam North. I stayed in the city (even though I own a residence at Kakkanad - now remaining unoccupied because all other family member are in Chennai, and a studio in Kakkand- now closed down since all film operations have been wound- up)

-34- In the first week of September 1998, I walked in (without any prior notice) to Liza’s house at Kombara (after 4 years) to meet my daughter Aarcha, Liza’s parents, Johny (who had by then completed his engineering course at Qulion and was expecting a job at Muscat)and Leena (who had completed her medical course and was doing PG at Bangalore). It was a reunion after a long time! It was providential for me that Liza was out of the country on business for that whole month. And every day I used to walk to that house at Kombara from my place of residence in Karakkamuri (the walk was to remain trim physically), pray for an hour at the adoration chapel before reaching Kombara (the prayer to remain calm emotionally), sit there in that house the entire day to convince everybody of my good intentions. During this time Achachan, due failing health, had to be occasionally taken for homeo treatments at Convent Junction, Broadway. He also had to be taken for spiritual retreats at Chittoor Renewal Centre, Aquinas College campus Spiritual Convention, etc. I took over from Johny the responsibility of taking Amma & Achachan to these places. Johny had to abruptly leave for Muscat on a job assignment. Though Liza on her arrival back did not approve of my being there, I had by that time won back the affection (I had lost) of the whole family. This made Liza taking along with her Aarcha (of 10 years age), walkout of her own home. This happened in October 1998. It was a set back for me. Because I did not achieve what I had come there for. [I ought to mention here Ms Anu, that your notice fails to note of this point … Liza had at one stage left her parents' house too].

-35- In the ensuring years (1998 to 2006) though Liza’s attitude to me did not change, since then I had always been almost everyday part of Kattikaren house at Kombara. I was there during every function in that house – Leena’s marriage, Johny’s marriage, childbirths and baptisms – some of which Liza herself would not attend. This I have done at the cost of being away from my own people. I can recall the instances and even count with my fingers the number of times I have met my parents or siblings after August 1998. I have never stepped into any of my offices after 1998. (very rarely some papers shall be brought to me for signatures). I have never been to Tambaram to visit my parents * But I could be of assistance to Liza’s mother during the last days of Achachan. Though Johny was away in Muscat, Leena and her husband (both of them doctors) had by then returned from Bangalore and taken up jobs in Lissy hospital Ernakulam. They were around to take care of Achachan, and hence I had nothing much to do other than stand aside. The only event I have missed at my in-law's place is Achachan`s funeral on 23 of October 2001. I had to be away from Kochi to attend a distress call by my brother, who on his own had started a film production, and found the production stalled in NewYork city, following the twin tower tragedy of 7/11. Even with this assistance of mine, my only brother today bears me a grudge that I had not been helpful enough in the last 8 years.

* When papa had a surgery, I went directly to Appollo Hospitals to attend to papa for one full month in year 2000. It was his (malignant) prostrate gland surgery.

-36- During these times, there were intermittent conciliatory talks with Liza through new mediators. My visits to Kombara ended in January 2005 when Liza’s mother left to join Johny in Muscat. Their house was given on rent there after. During the time I was resident in Karakkamuri (1998 to 2005 till Amma left, and from then to 2006 Sept), I had offered free services to spiritual organizations like - Divine Retreat Centre Chalakudy, Jeevan TV Tricur, Kingdom Ministry Palarivattam, Jesus Youth Kochi - for producing value-based programs. Other than these, my activities have been nil. th It was on may 11 last year (2006) an event occurred in my family …. an event though painful, helped me in establishing some contact with my estranged family after years of indefinite waiting. Following acute personal differences th with Aarcha, on the 11 of may 2006, Liza sent out our daughter from their place of residence. It was only on the next day (May 12, a Friday) I came to know of this. I went to pick my child up (literally) along with her books and bags from among a group of people whom myself or my child had not known for years. I tell you Ms. Anu, to you who establish that she has now become a major in age, that my daughter was still a minor when she was sent out from a place she considered as her home from the age of 10. And incidentally Ms Anu, I am a film maker who at a young age produced/scripted/directed epoch making films that have had dramatic scenes which sensitively portrayed the plight of a parentless girl child. for some reason (déjà vu?) every film of mine

-37- have such a story thread. For instance ente mamaattu kuttiyammakku(1983) kuttichathan (1984) onnu mutual poojyam varey (1986) padayottam (1982) - all had a parentless girl child. Yet, seeing the plight of my only girl child that day, I had to work hard not to break down in public. I was never prepared for such an event in my own life. On the day she was sent out, she had not known any of her relatives (not even her father) other than her mother from the age she could remember … and, the child was in the midst of her exams. She was finishing plus 2 and preparing for Engineering entrance tests. So I had reasons to push aside my sentiments and get active in taking her from one entrance test to another … Kochi, Chennai, Bangalore ------I had to dispel her anxieties and give her emotional support during her examinations. But my real problem was in addressing the child feelings against her own mother. I had to douse her anger and rage because it was consuming all her mental faculties. And at that point I had only Aarcha's version of the story against Liza - accusations such as 1. That her mother had disregarded her all along, 2. That her mother was biased against all her good friends, 3. Liza alienated all her friends, 4. Liza had called upon all her friends' parents and complained about Aarcha's behavior, 5. This had thought shame on the child before the world. She was lamenting that now she don’t even have friends to turn to, in her solitary life. The only way I could fight the child’s anger was to keep telling her that even if all what she was saying I take to be true, still it is always a mother's good intention that has to be borne in mind. Liza -38- would have done if out of love for her daughter and hence even if Aarcha felt wronged, it is in the commandment of God to respect and love one's parents. (pronounced by the same God who pronounced the marriage sacrament). I also kept telling her that nobody in this world can ever repay what one's mother had done for him/her. And whatever be the failings of mother, it can never diminish even by a minuscule what a mother had done for her offspring – by giving birth to the child and bringing it up all those years. I gave Aarcha exercises - to draw up a list of good things Liza had done for Aarcha, as the child saw it. She came up with things like - enrolling her for shuttle badminton training at Rajiv Gandhi stadium. And I asked her what she would ever could do in return, to repay her mother for the least among them. I continued this efforts for 4 months - day and night. Meanwhile I called for the help of a JesusYouth mediator, classmate of Johny, who had known both Aarcha and Liza well. He was kind enough to put aside his works and go to talk to Liza at her Softscan office (near Durbar grounds). While he was counseling Liza to forgive the child so as to atleast meet her, I was working on Aarcha to unconditionally ask pardon to her mother. I told her to disarm her mother with an embrace, at the very first sight itself. Since I couldn’t go along, the mediator look Aarcha to meet Liza so as to patch up the differences between mother and daughter. On May 15 and June 4 occurred two meetings at Liza office (she would not consent Aarcha to be brought back to their home) Both the times I saw Aarcha coming back agitated after a

-39- violent confrontation with her mother; and the hapless mediator helpless in preventing the clash that broke out.

I understood I need spiritual/prayer support in this matter. I started the child’s every day morning with a holy Qurbana at any nearby church. I brought in a group of JesusYouth children of Aarcha’s age and engaged her in songs and prayers with them. I took her to prayer groups who taught her to pray with them - as to how to discard anger and hatred (These were not easy, as Aarcha was used to a different life style. Also I suddenly realized how teenagers have a mind of their own! But these were extremely gratifying for me. These activities made my life busy for the first time in 8 years. And what more? All these JesusYouth children of Aarcha’s age have taken after Aarcha in calling me `Appa’. I have suddenly a lot of children today; and I have started taking care of every one of them!).

In the first week of August 2006, Aarcha got convinced about attending a spiritual retreat. I didn’t even had to suggest her. She came and told me she wanted to. It was a member in the prayer group - a lady named Aurelia Bartley, the windowed wife of a cinematographer who had been my colleague, who convinced Aarcha of this. So in the second week of August along with Aurelia, I took Aarcha for the International Youth Retreat that was taking place at Divine Retreat Centre Chalakudy. I entrusted her in the care of the same mediators/counselors who had helped Liza & me 13 years ago. Aurelia stayed along with her for additional prayer support. After the one week retreat, Aarcha did calm down she was amenable now to my suggestion that she should always be phoning her

-40- mother and talking to her. (Earlier she would have revolted to such a suggestion) I told her in fact, that it should be her mother who ought to be her first friend and she should devote time for that before keeping in contact with all her other friends which consumed the better part of her days (a habit she seemed to be addicted to).

It was she herself who phoned up Liza and fixed an appointment. Nevertheless I called the mediator and had him accompany for this third meeting fixed at th Liza’s office on the 14 of August, a Monday. I gave Aarcha some final advices – by citing some of the mistakes I had made in life that made me endup in a confrontative situation. I told her what all topics to avoid in the conversation with her mother. She returned happy. The mediator told me that a reconciliation was achieved. And Aarcha said that from then she would be going everyday to spend the entire day with her mother. (I did meet Liza only once, fleetingly. When she dropped Aarcha back at the end of a day). This continued till the end of August 2006. In September 2006, I was able to obtain a seat for Aarcha in a private engineering college in Chennai (It was on management Quota, under the recommendations of influential people. Her various entrance exam results were not good enough) Even though the child wanted to study in Bangalore, this was the best I could do for her. I brought her here to Chennai and enrolled her th for ECE course on the 4 of Sept 06. I have now come to Chennai after 8 years and been staying once again at Mahalingapuram

-41- for the last six months, hoping that I could be of some assistance to Aarcha (if not Liza).

Ms. Anu, with the recent developments of May to September '06, I was confident that a good step towards a reconciliation with Liza has been made. But now, I am in a state of shock since this topic of divorce is suddenly put to me – A topic which never came up anywhere in the duration of our estrangement. Now that I have declined your call for an application for a decree of divorce by mutual consent, I suppose you shall be filing a petition in the family court (as you have mentioned). I would rather plead your good selves to convince Liza that it won’t be in the interest of anybody. In case you fail to convince her, I suppose you shall be representing her in the court. In that sad event (which I would rather avoid) I shall not be engaging the services of an advocate. I shall plead my case myself (I believe such a legal provision is there). As a mark of this determination I am writing this out in my own hand. I request you to file this in court if you file the divorce petition.

I am giving a list of people below who had served as mediators/counselors to Liza & myself from 1992 to 2006.

• Tessy Paul (Liza’s mother) • Jeemon (Liza’s cousin) • Jaya chechi (Liza’s cousin) • Joyce Sebastion (Liza’s mother’s cousin) • Joseph Kattikaren (Liza’s father’s cousin) • Nimmi Chackola (Liza’s friend) • Dr. Alexander (psychiatric counselor engaged by Nimmi) • Fr George Panakkal & Fr Augustine Vallooran (marriage counselors at Divine Retreat centre) • Jomon, JesusYouth (Liza’s brother Johny’s classmate and a resident at Liza’s house for 2 years)

Please note that I have selected only those people who had been brought to help my family at the insistence of Liza or her parents. I would have never even known them otherwise. I am certain that if I call them to verify the facts I have given, they shall come and do it – not out of any partisan feeling, but to see that truth is established. For I am sure that none of them at any point ever saw that there had something happened in Liza & My married life that demands an extreme thing as a `divorce’. Also note that the mediators are aware of all the accusations that had been raised at various stages of the counseling. If any fresh charges, then it has to be substantiated by you.

-43- In conclusion of this letter I should state that I am embarrassed in writing this to you. For one thing, I had to admit a lot of failures. Secondly, it has been a long narrative of my personal life and it sounds very self conscious in my ears. Again, the narrative may have been long and boring. I am sorry, I could not use my script writing skills here – because I have to be absolutely truthful to God. I hope my language skills would have helped abate your misery in reading this long text. Still …. In case you found this reading torturous, Ms. Anu, please console yourself that your lawyer’s fee is well – earned!

Regards! Jijo Punnoose Chennai 19 February 2007. Liza didn't pursue this in Court. It is Amma's belief that since Amma herself was cited as a witness for my cause - which I did after talking over phone to her in Muscat, Liza backed out after a 'table banging' speech in the April of 1997 at Leena's house. It seems Liza kept repeating sarcastically " my own mother's testimony is good enough for me too ".

A Recollection - I was surprised when (late) Uncle Joseph Kattikaren the Advocate during one of his counseling sessions for Liza & myself in 1994 told me that he specialized in Divorce Cases. It was a revelation to me then. Seeing the surprise on my face he said "Yes, In fact I am the one who handled the sordid divorce case of your notorious actress Kadija". As he told me the details, he would have noticed the disgust on my face. He said "You see, so it is a good thing that I who have seen the worst is here to refrain you from doing a mistake …. you from good families…. Godly families. Look here, … I may not be the best of characters myself. But I assure you that when any potential litigant comes to me, before I start my hatchet job I tell them … you are entering into a fight where nobody wins … be warned and make sure this option is the last resort for you".

Mobile View Supreme Court of India Sajan K. Varghese And Ors. vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 15 February, 1989 Equivalent citations: AIR 1989 SC 1058, 1989 (2) Crimes 305 SC, 1989 (2) KLT 243 SC, 1989 (1) SCALE 425, (1989) 2 SCC 208 Author: Natarajan Bench: R Pathak, S Natarajan

JUDGMENT Natarajan, J.

1. The four Special Leave Petitions have been filed against a common order passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal M.C. Nos. 49/88 25 and 63/88 filed respectively by the petitioners in the two sets of special leave petitions. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 3 and 4.

2. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the petitioner in S.L.P. Nos. 1127-28/88 as Sajan K. Varghese and the petitioner in 30 S.L.P. Nos. 1148-49/88 as M/s. Super Film,

3. Sajan K. Varghese is the Managing Partner of a film producing concern M/s. Saj Productions and also a Finance Company known as the Oriental Exchange and Finance Company, Kottayam (for short the Finance Company). It would appear that the Finance Company 35 offered very high rates of interest to investors and depositors and this led to a large number of people investing crores of rupees with the Finance Company and in the case of many, their entire savings. Taking advantage of his position as the Managing Partner of M/s. Saj Productions as well as the Finance Company, Sajan K. Vargnese began to 40 utilise considerable sums of money from out of the deposits with the Finance Company for production of films by M/s. Saj Productions. The last film in the production of which Sajan K. Varghese engaged himself is a production titled as "Kadathanadan Ambadi". The film is said to be based on the life of a legendary hero of Kerala folk lore. The film was produced on a very lavish and extravagant scale and according to Sajan K. Varghese himself, he had invested more than 82 lakhs of rupees in the production of the incomplete film. Inspite of such lavish spending only about 90% of the shooting of the film is over and the rest of the shooting has to be completed and thereafter the film has to be edited and colour prints taken for the film to be commercially screened in theatres. It is common ground that a major portion of the investment of 82 lakhs of rupees for shooting the incomplete film was met by utilisation of funds invested by the public in the Finance Company as deposits.

4 Besides the amount taken from the Finance Company, M/s. Saj Productions is also said to have borrowed an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs from M/s. Super Film under an agreement, dated December 12, 1986. As per the agreement M/s. Super Film is to have a charge over the film for the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs advanced by it. There is a further provision in the agreement that should the production of the film be not completed on or before 31-3-1987, M/s. Super Film will be entitled to take over the negatives and complete the picture.

5 Smooth sailing of operations of the Finance Company came to face rough weather when several advertisements of allegedly questionable nature made by the Finance Company came to the adverse notice of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and the Commission passed an order restraining the Finance Company from publishing such advertisements. Thereafter the investments by the public in the Finance Company dwindled and the Company came to face a financial crisis when depositors clamoured for return of their deposit amounts. This lead to a total cessation of activity of the Finance Company. There was public uproar and some of the depositors filed a police complaint which resulted in a criminal case being registered against Sajan K. Varghese and he was eventually arrested and remanded to custody. 6 Besides the criminal case filed against Sajan K. Varghese, an insolvency petition O.P. No. 10/87 also came to be filed against the Finance Company, Sajan K. Varghese and his parents and brothers in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kottayam. The Insolvency petition was filed by Shri V.K. Kuruvilla the 4th respondent herein. Besides being a creditor himself the 4th respondent is also the President of the Association of the depositors in the Finance Company. It is stated that about 3,500 depositors of the Finance Company have formed themselves into an Association to safeguard their interests and it was on behalf of all the members of the Association the Insolvency petition was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kottayam. One of the items included in Schedule 'B' of the Insolvency petition is the negatives of the unfinished film, 'Kadathanadan Ambadi'. The Sub-Judge appointed the Official Receiver attached to the District Court of Kottayam (3rd respondent herein) to be the Interim Receiver under Section 20 of the Kerala Insolvency Act.

7 Besides the insolvency petition filed in the Sub-ordinate Judge's Court, Kottayam, two more insolvency petitions also came to be filed on the Original Side of the Madras High Court against the Finance Company represented by Sajan K. Varghese. The 3rd respondent would say that those petitions have been engineered by Sajan K. Varghese himself in order to thwart the insolvency proceedings in the Sub Court at Kottayam. We are not however concerned with that aspect of the matter. We are of the making mention of the filing of the insolvency petitions in the Madras High Court only to show that more than one insolvency petition has been filed against the Finance Company and Sajan K. Varghese.

8. Pursuant to the registration of a criminal case against Sajan K. Varghese and his arrest by the C.B., C.I.D. (FS), Trivandrum, the police took into their custody the semi processed film and the negatives of the unfinished film of Kadathanadan Ambadi and produced the same before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Trivandrum. The Magistrate directed the film and the negatives to be kept in safe custody in a cinema studio known as Chitranjali Studio in Trivandrum. Subsequently, the High Court deemed it advisable to take into its custody the negatives and have them kept in a place of safe custody.

9. After getting himself enlarged on bail, Sajan K. Varghese filed Criminal M.C. No. 49/88 before the High Court praying that the incomplete film may be returned to M/s. Prasad Laboratories, Madras wherefrom they were seized and that he be permitted to complete the film by making further investments and also effect sales of distribution rights and make arrangements for the screening of the film. To the said petition Sajan K. Varghese impleaded only three respondents viz. the State of Kerala, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B., C.I.D. (F.S.) Trivandrum and the Advocate Receiver in I.P. No. 10/87 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottayam.

10. In its turn, M/s. Super Film filed a petition Criminal M.C. No. 63/88 praying the High Court to hand over the negative of the incomplete film to it so that it can complete the picture and make arrangements for the sale of distribution rights and the exhibition of the film. M/s. Super Film based its claim on the rights conferred on it under the agreement executed by M/s. Saj Productions when it advanced a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs to M/s. Saj Productions.

11. The 4th respondent got himself impleaded as a party in the petitions filed by Sajan K. Varghese and M/s. Super Film before the High Court. The 3rd and 4th respondents opposed the applications of Sajan K. Varghese and M/s. Super Film on various grounds, the principal one among them being that thousands of creditors have' been defrauded of several crores of rupees by Sajan K. Varghese and therefore the interests of the general body of creditors needed protection and as such the negatives should not be handed over either to Sajan K. Varghese or M/s. Super Film. They also disputed the genuineness of the loan transaction between M/s. Super Film and Sajan K. Varghese and attributed collusion between them.

12. The High Court explored the possibility of some workable arrangement being arrived at so that the film could be completed and commercially exploited so that the money derived from the collections could be made use of to satisfy the claims of the creditors to the best extent possible. The efforts of the High Court did not prove successful and the High Court has observed that "prolonged negotiations, and several adjournments, did nol yield meaningful results, and stalemate prevailed."

13. At that stage of the matter, the counsel for the Receiver sought the permission of the Court to find out whether any other producer could be secured to complete the film on terms advantageous to the creditOrs. After making diligent enquiries, the counsel for the Receiver found that M/s. Navodaya, the 7th respondent would be a competent and suitable agency for entrusting the task of completing the unfinished picture and releasing it for commercial exhibition. Consequently, the 7th respondent was impleaded as a party. Shri M.C. Punnose alias Appachan who owns Navodaya is by all accounts an experienced and reputed film producer with a standing of 38 years in the field. The High Court took note of his credentials and standing in the field and was satisfied that he was the best suited person to whom the onerous task of completing the film could be entrusted. The High Court also found that the terms offered by Navodaya for completing the film and releasing it for commercial exhibition were more advantageous to the creditors than the terms offered by Sajan K. Vargnese or M/s. Super Film. Consequently, the High Court declined to grant the request of Sajan K. Varghese and M/s. Super Film for the return of the negatives to them and instead passed an order for the handing over of the negatives of the film to Shri M.C. Punnose alias Appachan of M/s. Navodaya. The High Court also gave detailed directions as to how the film was to be completed and the collections realised from the screening of the film are to be utilised. It is not necessary to set out those details in this order. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, Sajan K. Varghese and M/s. Super Film have filed the two sets of special leave petitions.

14. Dr. Chitale, Senior Advocate, appearing for Sajan K. Varghese and Mr. Kapil Sibbal, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Super Film International strenuously contended that the order of the High Court suffered from a two-fold error, the first being that it has exceeded its powers under Section 451 of the CrPC and second being that the High Court has failed to take note of the fact that the terms offered by the petitioners were more advantageous to all concerned, including the general body of creditors of the Finance Company than those offered by the 7th respondent. The further contention of Mr. Kapil Sibbal was that M/s. Super Film is entitled in law to get the custody of the negatives by virtue of the rights conferred on it under the agreement executed by M/s. Saj Productions.

15. Mr. Krishnamurthy Iyer and Mr. Subramanian Poti, Senior counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 respectively were equally vehement in contending that neither of the petitioners is a fit person to be entrusted with the negatives of the film or to be permitted by the court to perform the task of completing the film and arranging for its screening. Mr. Balakrishan, learned counsel, appearing for the 7th respondent stated that on account of the popularity of some of the leading artistes acting in the films having waned among the cinema-going public, the 7th respondent is no longer interested in obtaining the negatives and completing the film and releasing it for exhibition.

16. We have given the matter very careful and anxious consideration. On such consideration we find that the High Court was fully justified in having declined to grant the prayer of Sajan K. Varghese as well as M/s. Super Film for the return of the negatives to either of them and to permit the one or the other of them to undertake the task of completing the film and releasing it for commercial exhibition.

17. We will briefly give the reasons for our conclusion. We must, however, state that we feel constrained to a large extent from giving full expression to our views because of the fact that insolvency proceeding and a criminal case are pending against Sajan K. Varghese and the Finance Company and likewise the bona fides of the loan transaction between M/s. Super Films and Saj Productions is disputed by the Receiver representing the general body of the creditOrs. As any expression of view by us, one way or the other, beyond the limited extent of traversal in these petitions, is likely to prejudice the rights and interests of the parties in the proceedings pending in the other Courts, we have restricted our expressions in the matter to the limited confines of these petitions.

18. As we have already stated, the first ground of attack against the order of the High Court was that the High Court should have dealt with the petitions strictly in accordance with the terms of Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code and the High Court was not entitled to invoke its powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code or exercise its powers under the Kerala Insolvency Act for passing the order under challenge directing the handing over of the custody of the negatives and the semi processed films to the 7th respondent and calling upon the 7th respondent to complete the film in accordance with the terms offered by it. So far as these contentions are concerned we think that they suffer from a mis-conception. In the circumstances of the case Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code would strictly have no application. Chapter XXIV in which Section 451 occurs deals with the disposal of property produced before any criminal Court during any enquiry or trial and the powers of the Court to pass orders for the custody and disposal of the property pending trial. In this case it is, no doubt, true that the semi processed films and the negatives were seized by the police during the investigation of the criminal case registered against Sajan K. Varghese. However, it has to be noted that the semi processed films and the negatives are not themselves items of property regarding which offences have been committed. On the other hand the gravamen of the accusation made against Sajan K. Varghese is that he had induced thousands of investors to deposit crores of rupees in the Finance Company on the assurance that he would pay them high rates of interest and thereafter defrauded them and secondly he bad committed breach of trust by utilising the deposit amounts for the production of the film in question. That apart this is not a case where the creditors have stopped with preferring a report to the police of the commission of offences by Sajan K. Varghese. About 3,500 creditors have formed themselves into an Association and filed an insolvency petition through the 4th respondent in the Sub- ordinate Judge's Court at Kottayam. In the insolvency petition the unfinished film has been shown as an item of asset of the respondent to be secured by the Insolvency court. The Insolvency Court has appointed the 3rd respondent as interim receiver and ordered him to take possession of the assets of Sajan K. Varghese and the Finance Company. Consequently, by reason of the insolvency proceedings which are pending, the un-processed films and negatives cannot be strictly said to be properties over which an order of disposal could be made only under Section 451 of the Code. Be that as it may, there remains the further fact that the semi-processed films and the negatives can be of no use to anyone unless further investment to the tune of several lakhs is made and the picture is completed so that it can be made suitable for commercial exhibition. In so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, viz., securing the large amount of money that would be required to complete the film and the expertise that would be needed for completing the film are also very relevant factors to be considered by the Court before deciding upon the question as to whom the custody of the semi-processed films and the negatives should be given. It is with reference to all these factors the High Court has passed the order under challenge in these petitions. As regards the negative being handed over to Sajan K. Varghese so as to enable him to complete the film, two relevant facts would require consideration. The first would be whether he would be able to muster the requisite finances for completing the films in his present state of circumstances. The Finance Company run by him has virtually closed down and all his assets now stand vested with the Interim Receiver. The second aspect of the matter would be that even if he is in a position to raise funds for meeting the expenses for completing the film, whether it would be in the interests of the general body of the creditors to hand over the negatives and semi processed films to him. Factors of prudence and equity constitute sufficient deterrents for the Court taking the risk of accepting the prayer of Sajan K. Varghese, irrespective of the terms offered by him, for handing over the negatives to him and allowing him to complete the picture and release the same for exhibition. While on this aspect of the matter we must also refer to a concession made by Sajan K. Varghese before the High Court, which concession he now refutes having made. The relevant portion in the order of the High Court is set out in the following terms :

"During the hearing, Shri M.N. Sukumaran Nair, appearing for the petitioner (Sajan K. Varghese) submitted that the petitioner will be amenable to any direction, including direction to anyone else to complete the films, as it will be to the advantage of the petitioner. I record this submission." Before us it was sought to be contended that Sajan K. Varghese had not made any such concession but we can hardly give any credence to this statement in view of the categorical statement by the High Court in its order.

19. In so far as M/s. Super Film is concerned, its claim for the return of the semi processed films and the negatives to it is purely founded on the terms of the agreement executed in its favour by M/s. Saj Productions. The genuiness of the loan transaction between M/s. Super Films and M/s. Saj Productions is itself seriously disputed by the 3rd respondent. It has also been averred by the 4th respondent in his counter that the agreement in favour of M/s. Super Film appears "to be made out later" and that it is highly improbable that Sajan K. Varghese would have agreed "to surrender the negatives eventually worth Rs. 82 lakhs for a mere Rs. 10 lakhs if the film is not completed by 31st of March, 1987 "and that "even assuming Super Film has given an advance of Rs. 10 lakhs for film rights to the petitioner, the property actually belongs to Oriental depositors since the sum of Rs. 82 lakhs of the investors' money is at stake in the film". In such circumstances it would equally be a risky and unwise proposition to return the semi processed films and negatives to M/s. Super Film and entrust them with the task of completing the picture and releasing it for exhibition and realise the collections.

20. In the light of these over-whelming factors we do not find any necessity, since no purpose would be served, by going into the details of the terms offered by Sajan K. Varghese and M/s. Super Film and find out whether those terms are more favourable than the terms offered by the 7th respondent for completing the film and releasing it for exhibition.

21. Coming now to that part of the order of the High Court which pertains to the selection of the 7th respondent as the best suited agency for completing the film and releasing it for exhibition and the acceptance of the terms offered by it, the High Court was influenced by several relevant considerations. We have already referred to the fact that the High Court had earlier afforded ample opportunity to the parties to offer a workable solution, which would safeguard the interests of all parties concerned, for completing the picture but eventually the High Court found that inspite of prolonged negotiations and several adjournments no meaningful results could be achieved and that the stalemate continued. It is only thereafter the High Court accepted the suggestion of the advocate for the Receiver and impleaded the 7th respondent as a party and examined the credentials of the 7th respondent and its suitability for being entrusted with the task of completing the film and releasing the picture so that the net collections realised after reimbursing the 7th respondent the amounts invested by it, could be made available for the general body of creditors of the Finance Company. The High Court has also taken into consideration the fact that Shri M.C. Punnose alias Appachan, owning M/s. Navodaya had produced several films which were box-office hits and which had won him National and State awards and that he had all the facilities at his command including equipment and finances for completing the film. It may be that in certain aspect the terms offered by the 7th respondent were higher than the terms offered by Sajan K. Varghese and M/s. Super Film but in the larger perspective of the interests of the general body of creditors of the Finance Company which needs safeguarding the High Court has deemed it fit and proper to accept the terms of the 7th respondent and to entrust it with the task of completing the film and realising the collections. 22. It only now remains for us to deal with the statement of the counsel for the 7th respondent that the 7th respondent is no longer interested in taking up the assignment given to him by the High Court. As already stated the reason for the change of attitude of the 7th respondent is that some of the artistes acting in the film have lost their charisma to some extent. We are of the view that there would be neither grace nor justice if the 7th respondent were to go back on the offer made by it to the High Court. Shri Jose Punoose s/o Shri M.C. Punoose Appachan has filed an affidavit before the High Court and has stated therein that the 7th respondent deems it a great privilege to have been summoned and impleaded in the criminal miscellaneous case, and that in volunteering its services to take up and complete the picture it was willing to provide, as an act of humane gesture their existing studio facilities such as shooting floor, quarters for accommodation, editing facilities, shooting facilities and the services of the production staff etc. free of charge. The 7th respondent had further offered to complete the film with its own money. Sri Jose Punnose has stated as follows :

Subject to the conditions mentioned in para 14 above and as detailed in the earlier paragraphs, this respondent is willing to complete the film "Kadathanadan Ambadi" in this noble venture and as desired by this Hon'ble Court to relieve the hardships and miseries of the poor creditors of the Oriental Finance and Exchange Company.

This respondent shall complete the film "Kadatnanadan Ambadi" within three months from the date of receipt of items (1) to (7) to the best of our ability and knowledge, so that the film may generate as much income as possible.

23. Having gone so far and having persuaded the High Court to accept its terms and conditions and having expressed it willingness to provide its services to the maximum extent possible so as to provide relief to the poor and distraught creditors of the Finance Company, it would not be just and fair nor would it befit the status and standing of 7th respondent and its proprietors to go back on the offer made and accepted by the High Court. We cannot, therefore, accept the statement of the 7th respondent that it is no longer interested in taking the assignment of completing the film and arrange for its release.

24. For the above said reasons, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. Accordingly the Special Leave Petitions will stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Year 2009

BEFORE THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM

O . P. NO. 1119/2009

Liza Paul, D/o.John Paul, Aged 42 Years, Block IV, G-4, V. B. Garden, Chembumukku, Kochi-30 :Petitioner. Jijo Punnosse, Aged 52 Years S/o. M.C. Punnose, 15 Palat Sankaran Road, Mahalingapuram, Madras-34 :Respondent

PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE DIVORCE ACT, 1869 READ WITH SECTION 7 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT.

The petitioner submits as follows:-

1.The petitioner and the respondent are christians. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was an arranged one and its was solemnized on 14.09.1986 at st.Mary's Basillica, Ernakulam. At the time of the negotation of the marriage, the father of the petitioner had returned from Kuwait and the petitioner was studying in chennai for 4 year engineering. There was an understanding between the relatives at the time of negotiation of marriage that the petitioner should be allowed to continue her studies and complete the course and get employed. The respondent at that time was assisting his father in the family business. 2. After the marriage, the petitioner was taken to the matrimonial house. After the marriage was also, the petitioner continued her course and during her studies she used to stay in the hostel during the holidays. He never used to contact the petitioner when she went to Chennai to resume her studies. The respondent always maintained a detached attitude towards the petitioner. Since the petitioner was involved with her studies, she did not give much seriousness to the said attitude and peculiar behavior of the respondent. She used to come back home during her holidays. Thus she came to know that while she was away in the hostel, the respondent was missing from home for sometimes and his parents had no knowledge about his whereabouts. This fact was not intimated to the petitioner bt the respondents parents. She came to know about this when she came home for holidays. She was able to understand from the conduct of the respondent was not having a cordial relationship with his parents and others. The parents of the respondent were trying desperately to cover uo the problem of the respondent. 3. The petitioner could understand that the respondent was very much reserved in his nature. In the matrimonial house the petitioner she was not allowed to have a close relationship with the respondent. The respondent who was not at all least bothered about the petitioner. The petitioner was not allowed to mingle with other members of the family nor with the outsiders. The respondent made it very clear that the petitioner will not be allowed to go out and work with strangers. It was made clear that she will have to depend on him and his parents. In order to avoid any confrontation in the family, the petitioner gave up her hope to get a job and decided to be a simple housewife. The respondents relatives made it a point to treat her very affectionately in front of their guests. Otherwise she was asked to remain in the kitchen, doing all household works.. The petitioner submits that unlike a newly married person, the respondent was totally insensitive to the plight of the petitioner. He always preferred to remain alone in isolation and was indifferent to his responsibility towards his wife. The petitioner was made to understand by the respondent's parents that she should be grateful to them for bringing her as the wife of their son, who belongs to a traditional, aristocratic, affluent family. The also made it clear to the petitioner that she can live in the family so long as she does not try to come closer to the respondent who prefers to be more inclined to be with the parents. 4. Meanwhile, the petitioner became pregnant, in February 1987 but she lost the baby in a miscarriage. The engineering course was completed by the petitioner in June 1987. The parents of the respondent who was more interested in showing off their affluence before the petitioner and their friends, tried to make it a big event. During the trip, which was the first for the petitioner after her marriage with the respondent, the respondent parents always tried to ensure that the petitioner is not left alone with the respondent. The respondent was also not eager to be alone with the petitioner. This infact disappointed the petitioner who was looking forward for a chance to develop an intimate relationship with the respondent. All attempts of the petitioner to be closer to the respondent turned out to be futile. 5. In the month of September the petitioner becomes pregnant again. This was not att all appreciated by the respondent mother, who was always feared that once the child is born the respondent would became closer to the petitioner. She made it a point to send away the servants and the petitioner was asked to do all the hard and heavy works in the family consisting of several members including the petitioner's sister, brother and the parents. The petitioner who was having problems with her pregnancy was finding it difficult to manage the entire household works of the respondents family, with no one to help her. The respondents mother was very much particular that the petitioner should do all the works all alone. The parents of the respondents use to rake care to their locker room and show of their wealth to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner who was pregnant was very weak at that time and was unable to withstand the physical and mental strain she had to undergo. During the last stage of pregnancy the petitioner had incessant and profuse bleeding and was advised to take bed rest. The respondent and his parents never showed any concern towards the petitioner. She was forced to seek the help of her parents. 7. The petitioners parent's who had no knowledge about the situation in the respondents house, came to see her and they were shocked to see the plight of the petitioner. Finally they took the petitioner with them with the consent of the respondents parents. The petitioner gave birth to a girl child, Archa on 26th June 1988. After delivery the petitioner was taken to her parents house. Even after the expiry of the post natal rest period neither the respondent nor her parents showed any interest to take her back to the matrimonial house. After much negotiation between the parents of the petitioner and that of the respondents, it was agreed that the petitioner and the respondent should settle down in chennai. In August 1989 the petitioner was taken to chennai where the respondents father was having some business concern. 8. The petitioner submits that after shifting to Chennai she and her child along with her husband, starting residing in the first floor of the building. The office of the firm of the respondents father was functioning on the first floor. The respondent who was an introvert was least interested in managing the business, office, father nor was he interested in maintaining the family. The respondent who was not having an independent income at that time had to depend on his parents for the sustenance of the family. Even while staying there, the petitioner and the respondent were under the control of the parents of the respondent both financially and otherwise. All financial affairs controlled by the respondents father. The respondent had no say in the matters concerning the business, eventhough he was working in the same unit. The petitioner was also asked by the respondents father to work in their business concerns. 9. The petitioner submits that even though she was finding it difficult to deal with the film sector got involved in the projects hoping that the respondent will be happy. Eventually the respondent was involved with the project of starting a television serial. The respondent went off on long trip without making any arrangement for the petitioner and infant child who were left behind in Chennai. 10. The petitioner who was finding it difficult to manage the day to day affairs of the family with no help from the respondent, finally decided to join the projects. She was made to do the organizing of works. The respondent who did not like to do ant serious works, remained being involved with the shooting of films, the film artists etc. Even though the petitioner was involved with the work ,the petitioner and the respondent were not allowed to have any financial independence. The petitioner was not given any remuneration for her works except a paltry sum, given as allowance. The respondent was least interested in involving with the daily activities and was least bothered about the difficulties the petitioner had to face while trying to make both ends meet. He never made any attempt to talk, with his father and make some arrangements regarding that. The petitioner was to spend only the bare minimum for the daily substance. Whenever she found difficult to meet the expense of the girl child she was forced to ask for additional financial help from the respondent’s father. But he denied even that to her. 11. The petitioner who was unable to tackle with the financial problems, finally decided to equip herself by securing jobs in other firms. Meanwhile the petitioner had a back prolapsed. The respondent was away in connection with the fathers business. At that time she was forced to seek the help of the friends for getting hospitalized in Vijaya Hospital in Chennai. Eventhough the respondent’s parents and other relatives were staying in Chennai they did not show any interest to help the petitioner inspite of being informed about the situation. The respondent who came back also did not show any interest in helping hjer nor was he interested in finding out any other source of income. Instead he was interested in spending time with his friends and in other activities. 12. The petitioner was finding it difficult to make both ends meet with the meager allowance they are given by the respondent’s father. She felt that she was degrading herself. She tried to reason with the respondent and his family. But all her efforts turned out to be futile. The respondent who get irritated very soon would become violent and would start abusing her, finally she moved to a rented premises. The petitioner had to undergo emergency operation for the removal appendicitis while she aws in kochi on her return to Chennai she had other health problems consequential to the earlier operation. The respondent was not at all concerned and did not make any attempt to help the petitioner eventhough he was informed. The petitioner had no one to turn for help, except her brother who was studying in Chennai at that time. While the petitioner was taken to the operation theatre, she had to take the child along with her to the operation theatre as there was no one to look after the child. 13. The petitioner submits that the respondent was perpetually always under the influence of control substances was not at all interested in being involved with the affairs of the family. He was more interested in spending his time with his friends consisting of film artists and other personalities at his parents place at Chennai. The socialize events in his parents place were very frequent. When the petitioner tried to refrain from such activities he would become violent to the extend of destroying the furniture and other household articles. He was not at all interested in the affairs of the family. He was least botheresd about the plight of the petitioner who was struggling to make alivelihood. The respondent had all kinds of eccentric and perverted habits which only added to the mental torture of the petitioner. 14. He would remain closed in the room for days together. It was at that times he could comform that the respondent was addicted to drugs also. During the time respondent would violent and would harm both the petitioner and the child. Whenever the petitioner tried to dissuade the respondent he would threatened to throw out the child. The petitioner who realized that attempts her futile and that there is no chance of the respondent’s becoming responsible and caring husband and father for the petitioner and child. Unable to withstand the physical and mental torture the petitioner sought the help of the respondent parents to save her and her family. The respondents parents who instead of helping her turn out to be more antagonistic towards the petitioner and starting blaming. They blame the petitioner for the condition of the respondent. They even went to the extent of accusing the petitioner if stealing money from the house and from the office. Finally the petitioner herself tried to make the respondent understand the situation, but he declared that he was not a family oriented man and hence would like to get separated from the petitioner. The petitioner was becoming physically weak and was unable to withstand the mental torture she had to suffer in the hands of the respondent and his family. The cruel irresponsible and antagonistic attitude of the respondent and his parents made it impossible for the petitioner to continue her life with the respondent. Thus she decided to leave Chennai and return to her parents Kochi. She joined her parents without completing the computer course. She had to lookout for the jobs for continuing her life in Ernakulam without being a burden to her ailing father. This was disliked by the respondents parents and they started spreading unpleasant stories among the relatives of the petitioner. 15. The petitioner parents were very much upset at this situation. The petitioner father was sick and because of his weak condition. The petitioner agreed to give another by re counseling with the respondent. Thus at the instance of her father the petitioner went for counseling and finally agreed to resume cohabitation with the respondent in June 1993. The respondent even then continued his stay in Chennai and used to come during the weekend to the rented house where the petitioner and the child were living. The respondent was furious at the petitioner and he would sit there in the house for hours together and if the petitioner tried to talk with him he would get violent. The attempt of the petitioner to the re council for the sake of her family did not succeed. Even though both of them underwent detailed counseling. Infact the respondent became all the more violent intolerable the petitioner was afraid to be alone with the respondent. 16. Meanwhile the petitioner secured a job. The child was sent to school. The respondent who was not at all interested in the welfare of the family had a sadiatic pleasure in destroying the family and seeking the petitioner suffering. He was more interested in antagonizing the petitioner and the child with all sorts of perverted habits. He would bring caged birds and Will show them to the child. Finally he would strangle the birds and make the child upset. The child was taken to different places to meet different places and then he would leave the child at his parents house in Aleppey finally the petitioner had to approach the counselor and through the counselor the respondent was made to return the child to the petitioner. 17. The petitioner who was fed up with the eccentric peculiar and cruel habits and attitude, gave up the hope that the respondent will eventually come and be affectionate to them. Thus in the May 1994, the petitioner unable to withstand the physical and mental torture meted out to her by the respondent, decided to bring an end to the marital relationship for good and she decided to sever her relationship with the respondent for good. The petitioner started living separately with her daughter, in a rented house in Kochi. After the daughter completing her twelth standard the respondent and his parents forcibly removed the child from the petitioner. She was made to study in Chennai and stay with the respondent and she had to go undergo harassment in the hands of the respondent. She was up in the rooms not allowing to go to the college to pursue her studies. The child who unable to withstand the torture contacted the petitioner and finally the petitioner had to force herself in to the house of the respondent in Chennai and take the child away from the respondent. The respondent who became all the more enemical to the child even went to the extent of going to the college of the daughter and create problem there in her college. The respondent who was not at all bothered to give the moral support to the petitioner struggling to make both ends meet, barged into the house of petitioner and create scenes there so as to make her life all the more miserable. Finally she was forced to shift her residence to her friends place and latter to take up another house to avoid the respondent. The petitioner is unable to continue the suffering in the hands of the respondent and intense to bring to an end the mental trauma which is slowly affecting her health also. 18. The petitioner tried to talk with the respondent to go in for a separation. But the respondent who is more interested in continuing with the situation, causing more harassment mental agony to the petitioner. Because of their devious attitude of the respondent, the relationship of the petitioner and the teenaged daughter was also becoming strained. This only added to the mental agony of the petitioner. She became physically weak and due to the mental agony and trauma she had a stroke in the year 2007 and the condition continued almost a year. The respondent was making use of her weak situation to make the condition worse. This infact forced the petitioner to resort to the legal course for separation before this Hon’ble Court. 19. It is submitted that the petitioner was constrained to sever the relationship with the respondent because of mental torture and agony she had to suffer in the hands of the respondent because of his eccentric, cruel, indifferent and perverted habits. In order to protected her child and herself from further mental agony she was forced to sever her relationship with the respondent and start having a separate existence from the May 1994 onwards. 20. The cause of action for the petition arose on when the marriage was solemnized in Kochi, on 14.09.1986 at St. Mary’s Basilica, Ernakulam, in May 1994 when the petitioner was compelled to live the matrimonial house and come to her in Kochi because of the cruel attitude. The petitioner nad the respondent last resided together in the matrimonial house in Kochi, which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. There is no collusion between the petitioner and the respondent and there is no impediment whatsoever in granting a decree of judicial separation. 21. Under this circumstance it is submitted this Hon’ble Court may be pleased a) To pass decree for the judicial separation, for the dissolution of the marriage between the V and the respondent b) To pass such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstance of the case Dated this the 17th day of July 2009 Petitioner Liza Paul VERIFICATION I, Liza Paul, aged 42 years D/O John Paul residing at G-4, V.B. Garden Chembumukku, Kochi-30 do hearby solemnly affirm and state as follows. Dated this the 17th day of July 2009 Liza Paul petitioner

======"But there are none so deaf as those who will not hear."

BEFORE THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM

O.P. No. 1119 /2009

Liza Paul : Petitioner

Vs.

Jijo Punnoose : Respondent

OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

Respondent respectfully submit as follows :

1. All the averments and allegations contained in the original petition except those which are specifically admitted hereunder are false and hence denied.

2. The averments and allegations stated in paragraph 1 are not fully correct in its right perspective and hence denied to that extend. The averment that at the time of marriage proposal, respondent was assisting his father in the family business is not exactly true. Respondent’s father Appachan and elder brother Kunchacko were the pioneers of Malayalam Film Industry. After the death of Kunchacko, respondent’s father started a new film studio known as “Navodaya”. It was then (in 1977) at the age of 20, the respondent came in to assist his father in a film called “Kadathanattu Makkom”. Thereafter, in 1978 after studying the academics, technicality and economics of converting Malayalam cinema into cinemascope, the respondent in his personal capacity produced the film named “Thacholi Ambu” and in the ensuing years till 1986, either produced/scripted/directed epoch making films like, “Manjil Virinja Pookal, Padayottam, Ente Mammattikuttiyammakku, My dear Kuttichathan, Onnu Muthal Poojyam vare” and so on. Striking a new path from the style his uncle Kunchacko and father Appachan had conducted business for 30 years, the respondent had brought in young new talents (actors, directors, music directors, singers, writers) into the film field. This was even before the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent.. By alleging insensitivity on the character of the respondent and attributing anti-social behaviour on him, the petitioner out of her hatred ness is deluding truth. The marriage proposal came during the period the respondent was leading the business ventures. The respondent and family were planning to start a new business venture by starting an Amusement Park near Madras. In that business, the respondent was not assisting his father because everybody in his family were new comers in that field and it had been realised with the assistance of ever so many experts in that field who were hired by the respondent for the task. After marriage and her subsequent completion of computer courses, the petitioner herself was a member of that team.

3. The petitioner caused a lawyer notice to this respondent dated 1.2.2007 with allegations to which this respondent served a detailed hand written reply by himself. The truth is that, after 24.6.2003, this respondent never met the petitioner except on the occasion of serving lawyer notice during July 2007. For this by herself unannounced she came to the respondent's house and met him for less than two minutes. Subsequently in the above Original Petition, she has made newer bewildering allegations in addition of the already answered allegations. The lawyer's notice of 1.2.2007 alleges that the respondent totally disregarded his wife and child after September 1994. The fact is that the respondent was not even allowed to meet the petitioner or their daughter after 1994. Given this allegation in the lawyer’s notice, a sudden contradiction happens in the above original petition - a continuous list of harassment right from the day of marriage to the present day. The lawyer's notice alleges desertion while the original petition alleges harassment during the very same period. This is an irony. In August 1994, after 3 months of marriage counselling by Rev. Fr. Panakkal, the counsellor told the petitioner in the respondent's presence … 'Liza, you are an educated woman, an engineer. You should refrain from allegations that defy common sense. How can you say that there are persons out there who are transmitting evil thoughts through thin air against you?" The petitioner stopped the counselling then and there. It was the petitioner who had known the priest and had brought him for counselling. The Reverend was then a total stranger to the respondent. Likewise, the newer allegations in the above Original Petition are the imagination of her paranoid mind. It is far from truth; created out of hateful thoughts in her when the alleged offenders totally unaware of what is happening within her were far away in space & time. Hence before answering those allegations para-wise, this respondent is forced to state the true facts happened in their marital life till this day

4. The couple stayed with the parents of the respondent immediately after marriage as per custom and within a week shifted their residence to Mahalingapuram (Chennai) where this respondent owned a house. At that time this respondent was in charge of the business operations of his family at Tamil Nadu and his father and brother were engaged with their Film Studio at Kakkanad and hence all other family members of this respondent were staying at Kakkanad. Respondent’s family have a residence at Kakkanad near their Navodaya Studio. Petitioner who was undergoing 4th year Engineering Course at Guindy, Madras, completed her Engineering Course while the couple stayed together alone at Mahalingapuram. The only exception to this was a European group tour made in 1987 where the couple joined his parents. The petitioner was never interested in mingling with the family members of the respondent and withdrew herself from the company whenever the respondent was forced to entertain other family members, friends and relatives. When respondent realised her nature, he tried his level best to make her happy, but she behaved in a sullen mood for some time, but after the tour everything was alright.

5. After the birth of their female child “Aarcha”, petitioner underwent a two year computer course. In order to enable her to continue her studies without interruption, during the first year, the child was taken care by her mother at Cochin. Within one year, the couple brought the child to Madras. Since petitioner had an aversion for baby sitters and servants, this respondent used to take time out from his office and take care of the child when the petitioner was in her computer class. At 7 P.M, respondent and child would go to pick her back from class and thereafter to have dinner from outside. Petitioner during weekends and holidays accompanied the respondent with child and supervise the entire accounts of his office. This was the usual routine till her computer course was completed.

6. During the year 1991, this respondent had to travel to North India in connection with the production of Bible TV Serial, since he was the director of the Serial. At that time there was no mobile phone nor land line in their residence and hence once in a week, petitioner used to wait at his office at Madras for attending his call. Inspite of all these due to the busy work schedules, respondent could not contact her through phone and on those occasions, petitioner used to write letters regularly informing each and every aspect of their child as well as functioning of their Madras office. Subsequently during 1992, petitioner’s brother started residing with the couple and child for undergoing entrance coaching classes for his Engineering. At that time respondent felt free to immerse fully in his serial production and therefore he went to Germany and Israel for attending short term sociology and Biblical archaeology research courses. Almost all his films deviated from the customary path followed by his predecessors and created a new trend and in the production of Bible TV Serial also he wanted to create a difference. Even now this respondent is living alone recalling the memories of warmth, and affection communicated by petitioner to him during those days. Thereafter in order to feel the presence of petitioner and child all through with him, during the dubbing work, orchestra setting, background music etc which used to be done at their Studio, he used to take petitioner and child along with him and the members of the crew such as famous musician A.R. Rahman (who was only an upcoming musician then) etc still remembers the havoc created by child “Aarcha” on the musician’s precious keyboard.

7. During this period, respondent’s Madras office had to bear an additional burden due to the launching of Amusement park at Thambaram. At that time respondent could not manage those activities because of his busy engagement with the TV Serial. When petitioner alone could not bear the burden of such large scale business activities, respondent’s brother and father came to Tambaram, Chennai to supervise the construction work. They were residing at project site at Tambaram. Whileso, durimg 1st week of September 1991 petitioner informed the respondent that she was going to her house along with child on 12th September1991. Respondent who was eager to join with his wife and child strived hard to close his Hindi dubbing carrying on at Bombay and somehow or other reached petitioner’s residence on the eve of their wedding anniversary. They happily celebrated their wedding anniversary and thereafter while moving towards railway station for leaving to Madras, petitioner caught heavy stomach pain and immediately traced their family friend Doctor Paruthickan and admitted her at Kunjalus Nursing home. Immediately thereafter she underwent operation for removing appendicindis. Respondent, his sister Jiss and brother-in-law were in the hospital with tearful prayers. But at the very same time, respondent got the news that at their Amusement park, white Water Ride Raft overturned with 6 persons on board. Hence he was forced to reach Madras and had to stay there continuously to sort out the panic situation and consequential problems. At the same time he could not drop the TV Serial half way. However on all those days, he used to contact petitioner’s family regularly to know about her health, but they responded in a casual way. Later from her conduct, petitioner understood that she perpetuated a feeling of neglect during this period without knowing the actual plight of this respondent. It was quite natural, because on previous occasions, whenever she got sick, this respondent used to nurse her throughout day and night without seeking the help of even her family members and this time he could not do so because of his peculiar circumstances. In addition, when he reached Madras, he came to know that, his father reversed certain financial commitments made by petitioner to contractors, during 1st week of September and being annoyed with that she did not attend the office thereafter. But this fact was concealed by petitioner from the respondent.

8. During October 1991, she came to Madras, but thereafter respondent noticed considerable change in her attitude and behaviour. She was totally depressed and showed symptoms of paranoia. Since the respondent was busy with his work schedules, he could not give much attention to it. Moreover her brother was staying with them. However during holidays, respondent tried to take the child for outing and refreshment, but suddenly, petitioner refused to send the child with him. Then a wordy altercation took place. In fact respondent was dressing up the child who was standing on the cot. When the argument started , the child got frightened and start running across the double cot bed, hugging one parent and then the other saying, “Appa, Amma, Niruthu, Niruthu”. It was only when the 3 year old child tried to shut this respondent’s big mouth with her tiny hands that this respondent came to senses and walked out ashamed of himself. Again on another occasion, when she refused to send the child with the respondent another argument broke out between the couple, but respondent never thought it was out of her mental aberration ensued in consequence of severe physical problems faced by her during post operation period. Respondent whole heartedly expressed his regret in this matter thereafter.

9. When respondent could not bring back the petitioner to the normal marital life, he sought the help of her parents. Her father came to their residence, but instead of reconciling the matter he sent his son to a hostel and took petitioner and child with all their belongings to their parental home. Respondent could not understand the real reason behind the sudden change of stand of her parents and all his consequential efforts for a reconciliation failed due to the non-co-operation of herself and her parents. Till November 1991, her parents used to tell this respondent to cut off his business commitments so as to enable him to spend 4 to 5 hours daily with petitioner. But after his wife and daughter’s departure, everybody in her house kept a distance from this respondent and they even did not allow him to talk to his daughter over phone. The real reason was revealed to him after years only. In fact her father was forced to take back petitioner and child and also to remove their son from this respondent’s house hearing the version of the petitioner that respondent was systematically administering Arsenic to them. This fact was made known to the respondent by a Counsellor (Joyce Sebastian, the petitioner’s cousin). When he came to know about such a fabricated story, respondent understood the depth of her hallucination and suspicion. It took the respondent till 1998 to convince the petitioner’s parents and siblings that this and likewise other allegation of the petitioner is only a fabrication of her paranoid mind. Once she found they too were convinced of this truth, the petitioner walked out of her paternal home with her 10 year old daughter. It was then Counsellor Fr. Augustine Vallooran remarked to Joyce Sebastian in an old Malayalam saying “Those who are asleep can be woken. But one who feigns sleep, you can’t rouse. We can only pray”. The respondent and the petitioner’s family members are waiting to this day that the petitioner shall one day wakeup from her delusion. The respondent has the support of the petitioner’s family members. The respondent had kept good cordial relationship with every one of them during the ensuing years and is sure that if any one of them is called today to vouch for his character, they shall do so. Whereas, the petitioner has withdrew into a self imposed isolation. She did not even come home to attend the marriage of her only brother; nor the funeral of her own father.

10 . During 1992, due to the efforts of mediators & Counsellors attached to various retreat centres, petitioner agreed to resume cohabitation and therefore in order to avoid any further suspicion from her side, respondent took a flat at Providence Grove near Kombara. At that time petitioner was employed at Ernakulam and the child was studying at Choice school. Respondent dropped most of his business activities and tried his level best to create congenial atmosphere by staying in the flat throughout the day time waiting for his wife and child. But on all those occasions also, petitioner strongly objected the child being alone with the respondent. Her apprehensions and wild imaginations in fact exceeded all limits and even the Counsellors could not wipe off her baseless apprehensions. Since petitioner was showing a totally negative attitude, respondent could not even advice her for having a psychological counselling which she highly needed. Thereafter she stopped meeting the mediators and Counsellors. During October 1994, when respondent was in Chennai for a short business visit, petitioner left the flat with all her belongings and refused to come back to the flat inspite of repeated request of this respondent. Respondent waited there for one month and thereafter vacated the flat. Her mother who in fact after realising the adamant and suspicious nature of her daughter forced her to resume cohabitation, suddenly refused to compel her daughter to come to the flat. The truth behind this sudden change was revealed to this respondent by her mother years later. While the couple were staying at Providence Grove, this respondent used to keep Boric acid (white powder) in his toilet kit for the treatment of ringworm infection. Petitioner took this powder from his toilet kit and managed to convince her mother that she had it chemically analysed and the powder was a psychedelic chemical. Thus her mother also thought that it was dangerous to allow her daughter and grand daughter to stay with him and therefore immediately took back them to their parental home. The respondent is very sure that his mother-in-law today shall confirm this.

11. When petitioner totally avoided respondent, and her family also took a hostile attitude to him, he started writing letters/birthday cards to petitioner and child regularly, but she never cared to respond to those letters. During August 1996, respondent again approached the mediators who reunited the couple earlier. When the mediators contacted petitioner, she took a different stand which was not taken till that date. She put forward a demand that respondent should cut off his relationship with his family. Respondent agreed to it since he gave more importance to his family than that of his relationship with his parents. Infact she put forward such a suggestion especially due to the reason that respondent’s parents approached her parents several times after the year 1992 and clarified most of their misunderstandings created by petitioner. Hence her parents also started forcing her for reunion. As per the directions of mediators, respondent also wound up his business activities slowly stage by stage. In fact withdrawing from all business activities was a hazardous task, yet for the sake of his family life, retired from all joint business operations and came to Ernakulam during August 1998. As mentioned in the previous para, this respondent came to her parental home during September 1998 and at that time her family welcomed him and he could interact with his child freely because petitioner was out of India in connection with her work assignment. But when she returned during October 1998, she witnessed a reunion between the respondent and her family and her family members refused to be misled according to her allegations. That was when she left her home along with the 10 year old daughter and refused to stay at her own parental home. From then, she refused not only the respondent but also her own parents from meeting the child. 12. In the ensuing years, though petitioner showed an indifferent attitude, respondent could enjoy the emotional support of all her family members. This respondent became part and parcel of their life since he already gave up his ties with his family at Madras and residing at Ernakulam. The only occasion this respondent missed was the funeral of her father on 23.10.2001. At that time respondent’s brother sought his help when his film production stalled in Newyork city following the twin tower tragedy. But respondent returned back knowing her father’s death and this created grudgeful attitude to this respondent by his brother. Thereafter till 2005 respondent used to contact her mother and at her mother’s instance approached several mediators for reconciling the matter. During the year 2005 petitioner’s mother left Ernakulam to join his son at Muscat. While undergoing negotiations through mediators, respondent offered free services to various spiritual organisations in producing programs for the Media. Other than these engagements, respondent had no specific job other than trying to make understand the petitioner about the sanctity of marriage and the damage caused by a divided family to the mind of a growing young girl child.

13. While so, on 11.5.2006, due to acute personal differences with her minor daughter, the petitioner drove out the child from her flat. Respondent came to know about this only on the next day. Respondent picked up the child and her baggage and books from the midst of her friends. Respondent till that day, did not claim the child from the petitioner only to allow her to enjoy the emotional support of her mother which a father could not provide satisfactorily after a particular period of childhood. But during the midst of her plus 2 and entrance exam, she has been mercilessly drove out from the house which no normal mother could do to a minor girl child under any circumstance. Respondent realised the mental agony faced by the child because from the age of 10 onwards her mother created an ill feeling in her mind against her father; and her mother who was everything to her had deserted her at her coming of age. Hence he strived hard to patch up the difference between petitioner and their child with the help of a mediator and finally he succeeded in it. The mediator who counselled daughter “Aarcha’ is Jomon Varghese of Jesus Youth organization. An engineering batch mate of petitioner’s brother and a resident at her home for 2 years, Jomon would vouch for these facts today. During this reconciliation period, the respondent secured a payment seat for Engineering at a College in Chennai for his daughter. The petitioner then took over the responsibility of educating their daughter. This happenned in Aug 2006 after 3 months of enemity between mother and daughter. After this period, this respondent never tried to visit petitioner or their daughter and talked to them only through mediators. The reason being, the relationship between the petitioner and daughter was always punctuated with storms. Moreover, the petitioner in her paranoid state would even accuse the mediators (her own relatives) plotting to harm her. She would even accuse rank outsiders who had taken pity on her daughter to have engineered the rift between herself and her daughter. Anyone would have taken pity on a child who during her mother’s prolonged absence, for it’s protection was instructed to be locked up in the room everyday night by the watchman. This has created psychological problems for the daughter too since she dosen’t know whom to trust. As a student she gets into problem at her college - for spreading scandals about her hostel warden and HOD. In the middle of the night she would throw tantrums at her local guardians if they do not agree to let her be away from the hostel without reason. The child would even non-chalantly accuse her own maternal grandmother when the old woman sides with the local guardians against the child’s demands. The petitioner complaints that her life has been made miserable by threats from people who are against her very existence. The fact is that, there has only been one single threat made by the good meaning counsellors all these years .. It was a warning of what would happen to the petitioner’s child if the child were estranged from other relatives including her father. The textbook example of the fate of an unloved offspring, what the counsellors had constantly warned the petitioner, has today become a horrifying reality. In her attempt to exonerate her conscience from the cause of this horror of her own making, the petitioner accuses her husband and her own blood relations - who by their inability were nowhere near the scene when the tragedy was in the making.

14. The petitioner brought a lawyer notice dated 1.2.2007 to this respondent’s residence and served it . To that respondent sent a detailed reply refusing to co-operate for divorce. In a vengeful mood the petitioner had phoned the respondent's brother and threatened that "unless my demand for divorce is not met, I shall make all your names stink". This is no idle threat. Everytime something good is mentioned in the media about the respondent, the petitioner would call upon friends and relatives to accuse the respondent of malice and perversity. Just when the respondent's name appeared in the media in connection with the launch of a new value-based cable TV channel in year 2000, the petitioner called up her friend the gossip columnist of Malayalam Weekly and a defamatory story was published against this respondent in the weekly. The gossip story lampooned the respondent for hippocratic values - because he is a threat to the lives of his own wife and child; the story quoted the petitioner on this. Respondent did not respond to any of her harassments, knowing her mental derangement. Also, the cherished memories and dreams which they transpired during their joint life has been quite sufficient to fill energy for continuing his unending waiting for the return of the petitioner to his life. He still believes that one day petitioner would realise the reality of life and return to him for resuming cohabitation.

15. During June 2007, respondent came to know that a further estrangement had happened between the petitioner and their daughter. From the Sub Inspector of Kakkanad the respondent came to know that the petitioner had filed a criminal complaint at the police station against her own daughter and members of a neighbouring family with who from her young age during the petitioner’s prolonged trips abroad the child used to be put up with. This criminal nd complaint happened when the daughter was in her 2 year at the engineering college. Upon the Sub Inspector’s advice that this vindictive complaint be prudently withdrawn, the respondent had frantically contacted advocate M. George who had filed the complaint on behalf of the petitioner. Upon the respondent’s strong words that as a father he would have to step in to end the sordid affair, M. George withdrew the complaint. The respondent cites these incidents to show the tumultuous state of things the petitioner has brought upon herself, her husband, her daughter, relatives, friends and innocent bystanders. Subsequent to this, the petitioner’s mother came to Chennai to pacify the child and resided with her for some months at the college hostel. During that period, occasionally, petitioner’s mother would come with the daughter to visit this respondent at Chennai - so as the child's relationship with her father is normalised. Other than through the petitioner's mother, the respondent has had no interaction with his daughter. Petitioner and this respondent were physically separated during October 1994 and thereafter never resided together. After their separation respondent met her in June 2003 in connection with mediation talks. Thereafter he saw her only when she came to serve the lawyer notice on 20.6.2007 hardly for two minutes. During July 2009, as per the advice of the petitioner’s mother, in order to inform the petitioner about the dangerous plight of their daughter, respondent sent two emails to the petitioner. The topic of the emails was related to an accident which occured when their daughter left unannounced from the hostel and almost got drowned at a midnight party in a hotel. Two other engineering students got killed in this incident in Chennai. The respondent has had no contact the petitioner or their daughter other than in these instances and hence there have not been any instances for harassment. These being the true facts which can be verified, all the contrary allegations stated in the Original Petition are untrue and hence denied.

16. The averments and allegations stated in paragraph 2 are utter false and hence denied. After the marriage, the couple stayed in the matrimonial home only for 7 days as per custom. The petitioner had stayed in the hostel till the completion of her studies. She had no reason to come to her matrimonial house during the holidays, since both the couple were staying in Chennai at that time. The further allegation that respondent never used to contact the petitioner when she went to Chennai etc are false. She was living with him. This respondent never maintained a detached attitude or peculiar towards the petitioner as alleged. The further allegations that respondent used to miss from home for sometime and his parents had no knowledge about his whereabouts, she came about this during holidays, that the respondent was not having a cordial relationship with his parents, the parents of the respondent were trying desparately to cover up the problem of respondent etc are equally false and hence denied. Since the respondent has stated the actual facts in the foregoing paragraphs, he is not reiterating the same in reply to these averments.

17. All the averments and allegations stated in paragraph 3 of the O.P are concocted and false and hence denied. This respondent was not reserved in his nature. His countless media colleagues and disciples bear testimony to that fact. In the matrimonial house apart from the couple there were no other person and hence the contrary allegations that “she was not allowed to have a close relationship with the respondent, he was not at all least bothered about the petitioner, not allowed to mingle with other members of the family nor with the outsiders, he made it very clear that the petitioner will not be allowed to go out and work with strangers and she will have to depend on him and his parents, and in order to avoid confrontation she gave up her hope to get a job and decided to be simple housewife, the respondent’s relatives made it a point to treat her very affectionately in front of their guests, otherwise asked to remain in the kitchen, doing all household works, respondent was totally insensitive to the plight of the petitioner, he preferred to remain alone in isolation and was indifferent to his responsibility towards his wife, she was made to understand by the respondent’s parents that she should be grateful to them for bringing her as the wife of their son, who belongs to a traditional, aristrocratic, affluent family, and they also made it clear to the petitioner that she can live in the family so long as she does not try to come closer to the respondent who prefers to be more inclined to be with the parents” etc are utter lie and hence denied. All these are created out of paranoia and wild imagination of petitioner and the true facts happened in our marital life was just opposite to her averments. During our joint life, the couple get along with his parents only during the European tour and on the occasions of festivals, marriage function etc.

18. Averments and allegations stated in paragraph 4 of the O.P are not fully correct and hence denied to that extent. The European tour was arranged approximately 10 months after marriage and at that time both the couple were staying in their own house. It was not a honeymoon trip and in such circumstance respondent could not withdraw himself from other family members taking care of petitioner alone. By conducting a European tour, how a family’s affluence can be shown in front of others. The further allegation that respondent’s parents always tried to ensure that the petitioner is not left alone with the respondent is an utter lie. When the couple were staying alone without their parents at Chennai, what is the use of preventing the petitioner from interacting with the respondent for a small period of 45 days as alleged. Similarly there was no occasion in which she got disappointed without getting the respondent with her as alleged. They in fact maintained intimate relationship with each other while staying alone and in such circumstance, both of them have no other option than to talk to each other and hence she need not wait for creating intimacy with the respondent till the date of European tour. All these allegations are cooked up to tarnish the personality of this respondent.

19. All the averments and allegations stated in para 5 of the O.P are absolutely false and hence denied .The allegation that her pregnancy was not at all appreciated by the respondents’s mother, who always feared that once the child is born the respondent would become closer to the petitioner, she sent away the servants and the petitioner was asked to do all the hard and heavy works in the family consisting of several members including the petitioner’s sister brother and parents, ,petitioner find it difficult to manage the entire household works of the respondent’s family with no one to help her, respondent’s’s mother was very much particular that the petitioner should do all the works all alone, the parents of the respondent used to take her to their locker room and show of their wealth to the petitioner etc are concocted stories and hence denied. In fact petitioner never stayed with the family of this respondent and all these are fabricated out of her wild imagination .

20. With regard to the allegations stated in para 6, it is respectfully submitted that no mental or physical strain as alleged by her were inflicted on her by anybody and this respondent and family who were eager to see this respondent’s child extended all possible help and moral support to her. In fact this respondent himself managed to extend all nursing care during her pregnancy period as desired by the petitioner and all the contrary allegations are fully false and hence denied.

21. All the averments stated in para 7 of the O.P are not correct and hence denied. Petitioner’s parents came to respondent’s house as per custom to take the petitioner along with them for delivery and not as alleged by the petitioner. Her parents were fully happy with the marital life of the petitioner and respondent and need not be shocked by seeing their happy marital life. The further averments that neither respondent nor his parents showed any interest to take her back to the matrimonial house, after much negotiation it was agreed that they should settle down in Chennai , in August 1989 she was taken to Chennai etc are absolutely false and hence denied. In fact the couple were staying at Chennai even before delivery and therefore there was no need of any negotiation as alleged by her. 22. With regard to the averment in para 8 that they were residing in the first floor of the office of respondent’s father’s firm is not correct and hence denied. The firm was a joint venture of respondent and family. The further allegations that respondent was an introvert, least bothered in managing the business nor in maintaining the family, respondent has no independent income and had to depend on his parents for the sustenance of the family, they were under the control of the parents of respondent both financially and otherwise, all financial affairs were controlled by the respondent’s father, the respondent had no say in the matters concerning the business, even though he was working in the same unit, the petitioner was asked to work in their business concern etc are equally false and hence denied. In fact it was a joint venture and all the family members including petitioner joined hands in the management of business and it was not because of any demand from respondent or his family.

23. All the averments and allegations stated in para 9 and 10 of the O.P are absolutely false and hence denied. The allegations that even though she was finding it difficult to deal with the film sector got involved in the projects hoping that respondent will be happy, respondent went off on long trips without making any arrangements for the petitioner and infant child , petitioner finding it difficult to manage the day to day affairs with no help from respondent finally decided to join the projects, the respondent who did not like to do any serious works, remained being involved with the shooting of films, the film artists, they did not have any financial independence, she was not given any remuneration for her work except a paltry sum, respondent was not interested in involving in the daily activities and least bothered about difficulties the petitioner had to face while trying to make both ends meet, he never made any attempt to talk, with his father and make some arrangements regarding that, the petitioner was to spend only the bare minimum, for the daily sustenance, she was forced to ask for additional financial help but his father denied even that to her etc are fully fabricated stories and hence denied. In fact while respondent was away from Chennai in connection with the production of TV Serial, petitioner was residing with her own brother who came to Chennai for undergoing engineering entrance coaching. This respondent was engaged in the shooting of film not because he hate to undertake any serious work but because of the fact that he was the Director of the film and film direction could not be done by any person who did not know anything about it. Petitioner in fact was in-charge of our Madras office at that time and she need not ask anybody to withdraw money from their office.

24. All the averments and allegations stated para 11 and 12 of the O.P are absolutely false and hence denied. There was no occasion in which petitioner faced any financial problem during our joint life. Her contradictory statements with regard to seeking job outside itself is sufficient to prove the falsity of her allegations. Similarly when the petitioner suffered back pain due to back prolapse, this respondent took care of her personally because she refused to appoint any home nurse for her. Immediately after knowing her sickness, respondent came back to Chennai and the contrary allegations are absolutely false and hence denied. This respondent was away in connection with his own business and not his father’s business and no business was carried out by his father alone at that time. This was purposefully stated by her for degrading the status of this respondent. In fact respondent’s parents used to send prepared food for them , but petitioner who was of a peculiar type discouraged it by refusing to consuming the same. This respondent never spent time with any friends unnecessarily as alleged by her and during the time film production, he had to mingle with all persons involved in it since he was the director of the film. This respondent has sufficient income and he can withdraw it from the firm’s account also without the permission of anybody . The firm’s accounts written by the respondent herself prove the fact that she herself withdrew amount as and when required by her without any obstruction. The further allegation she found it difficult to make both ends meet with the meager allowance given by respondent’s father is an utter lie and hence denied. There was no such occasion for degrading herself or to reason with the respondent and his family. Similarly this respondent only on two or three occasions got irritated and on those occasions, petitioner was more violent than the respondent . This respondent never abused her and she did not move to rented premise as alleged. The real problem faced by the petitioner and respondent in connection with the removal of appendicitis has clearly stated by this respondent in foregoing paragraphs and contrary allegations are absolutely false. In fact after the operation, her mental condition became strained and she started expressing some type of hallucinations and suspicion and due to this mental derangement our family life has been strained and separated even though this respondent was willing to adjust with such mental derangement. At the time of operation, the child was with me praying for her before Mother Mary of St.Mary’s Basilica church. All the contrary allegations are absolutely false and hence denied.

25. With regard to the averments stated in paragraph 13, the vague nature of allegations such as “under the influence of control substances”, “ eccentric and perverted habits” etc without stating what kind of eccentricity or what she indented by saying using of substance control etc clearly reveals the falsity of her allegations. This respondent never used any sort of control substances and he could not understand what she meant by that. Petitioner happily mingled with almost all the artists who joined hands in our venture and there was no occasion of compelling her to attend such functions. But those functions were not frequent as alleged by her. There was no occasion of destroying furniture or other household articles under any circumstance as alleged by her. In one place she alleged that this respondent was an introvert and in this para she pleaded just the opposite of it that this respondent was more interested in spending time with friends consisting of film artists etc. This respondent till this day was not addicted to any type of eccentricity or perverted habits as alleged by her.

26. All the averments and allegations stated in para 14 of the O.P are nothing but lie and hence denied. This respondent never remained in the room after closing it for days together as alleged. In fact before shooting of films, as he was the Director he had to read the Script, and had to imagine the scenes which are to be fixed for each dialogue of the artists and in those occasions, used to say in the house without attending telephone and visitors. Fully knowing this fact petitioner concocted it in a way for alleging wild stories such as addiction to drugs etc. This respondent never used any drugs other than the medicines prescribed by the doctors till this day and all the contrary allegations are absolutely false. This respondent never caused any harm to petitioner or child under any circumstance and never threatened to throw out the child. The respondent was a responsible father and husband and all the contrary allegations to project him as irresponsible , is either with ulterior motives or due to her mental derangement. Petitioner never sought the help of respondent’s parents and there was no occasion to seek the help of this respondent’s parents and this respondent’s parents never took any antagonistic towards the petitioner nor blamed her. They never accused the petitioner of stealing money and the petitioner who was not residing with this respondent’s parents how could steal money from their house and since she was managing the entire accounts of the office, had absolute freedom to take money according to her need. This respondent never declared that he was no a family oriented man and hence would like get separated from the petitioner and there was no such occasion for saying so . This respondent gave prime importance to his marital life and therefore for the sake of the same, wound up all his business activities as directed by the mediators, but even after that petitioner took an adamant stand . Petitioner left Chennai, after misleading her parents and the true facts which lead to that had already stated by this respondent. Hence the averment that the cruel, irresponsible, and antagonistic attitude of respondent and his parents made it impossible for the petitioner to continue her life with the respondent and therefore joined her parents without completing the computer course, , respondents parents started spreading unpleasant stories among the relatives of the petitioner etc are nothing but fabricated stories and hence denied. It is true that hearing her wild accusations, her parents believed her and brought her to her parental home, but when they knew the truth later, they forced her to resume cohabitation, then she quarreled with her own parents and shifted her residence to a rented flat.

27. The averments in paragraph 15 that, petitioner’s parents were very much upset at this situation, her father was sick and because of his weak condition, she agreed to give another chance by reconciling with the respondent, at the instance of her father went for a counseling and finally agreed to resume cohabitation in June 1993, the respondent even then continued his stay in Chennai and used to come during the weekend to the rented house were the petitioner and child were living, respondent was furious at the petitioner and he would sit there in the house together and if the petitioner tried to talk with he would get violent, the attempt of the petitioner to reconcile for the sake of her family did not succeed, the respondent became all the more violent and intolerable the petitioner was afraid to be alone with the respondent etc are not correct and what was actually happened was already stated by this respondent and hence for the purpose of brevity not reiterating here.

28. The allegations stated in paragraph 16 that respondent was not at all interested in the welfare of the family had a sadistic pleasure in destroying the family and seeing the petitioner suffering, more interested in antagonizing the petitioner and the child with all sorts of perverted habits, would bring caged birds and will show them to the child and would strangle the birds and make the child upset, several times the respondent would take away the child without informing the petitioner and there by making her upset, the child was taken to different places to meet different people and then he would live the child at his parents house in Alleppey, finally the petitioner had to approach the counselor and through the counselor the respondent was me to return the child to the petitioner etc are utter false and hence denied. The couple lived together at Ernakulam only for a short period and during this period the child was studying. In such a circumstance how respondent could take away the child for a long period as alleged. In fact this respondent was not even allowed to go out with the child for an outing fearing that the child would be much attached to him. Since most of the time petitioner was in her office, respondent had to look after the affairs of the child and in order to give maximum comfort to the child during the absence of her mother, respondent took the child for outing that also after intimating the petitioner. All the contrary allegations are cooked up stories and hence denied.

20. With regard to the allegations stated in paragraph 17, it is respectfully submitted that respondent never showed eccentricity or peculiar cruel habits or attitude and therefore there fore the petitioner need not be fed up with such non-existing behaviour. She started living in a rented house when her parents revealing the true facts compelled her to stop her wayward behaviour towards this respondent. Then she deserted her own parents . It is absolutely false that respondent and family removed the child to Chennai after th her 12 standard. Petitioner herself drove out the child from the rented house and the child took refuge with her friends and when respondent came to know about it he took all possible efforts for reconciling their child to her mother. After so many days efforts, the child agreed to reconcile and during this period she could not score higher rank in Entrance examination. In that situation, respondent managed to obtain admission for her at Chennai for Engineering and the child was also admitted at a hostel attached to the college. The child never stayed with the respondent and only on vacations, petitioner’s mother brought the child to respondent’s house and stayed there along with petitioner’s mother. This respondent never locked up the child in rooms as alleged and never prevented her to go to the college to pursue her studies . There was no occasion in which petitioner came to take the child from this respondent’s house as alleged. The child joined the Engineering college after attaining majority and she took her own decisions and this again culminated in filing a criminal complaint by the petitioner herself against the child. This respondent never created any problem in her college. The petitioner managed to obtain an emotional support to her from her parents by telling them that respondent tried inflict poison on her and the child and he was drug addict etc, but when her parents realized the truth, they strongly opposed the petitioner’s adamant stand without having any reason and they extended all moral support to this respondent and entrusted certain responsibilities of her family especially when her brother had to go abroad in connection with his employment. This respondent never barged into the house of the petitioner nor created any scenes there. This respondent never caused any suffering to the petitioner and the trauma has been created by herself by her own hallucination and suspicion. All the contrary averments stated in paragraph 17 are absolutely false and hence denied.

30. The allegations in paragraph 18 that respondent who is more interested in continuing with the situation, causing more harassment mental agony to the petitioner, because of the devious attitude of the respondent, the relationship of the petitioner the teenaged daughter was also becoming strained, because of mental agony and trauma she had stroke in the year 2007, respondent was making use of her weak situation to make the condition worse, this forced her resort to the legal course for separation etc are absolutely false and hence denied. In fact the relationship between the petitioner and child strained due to the filing of criminal complaint and due to the driving out of the child from her house and this was patched up by the effort of this respondent. All the true facts have been stated in the foregoing paragraphs by this respondent about these matters. After their separation during 1994, except during mediation talks this respondent never approached the petitioner nor caused any hardship to her and was silently waiting for her repentance and return till this day. Even during the time of sending the child for a reconciliation talk with the petitioner, respondent kept aloof from the scene so as avoid irritation to the petitioner.

31. All the averments and allegations stated in para 19 of the O.P are not correct and hence denied. Any of the reasons stated by the petitioner for severing the relationship with me, never existed and these vague allegations repeating in every paragraph reveals that there was no real reason for avoiding this respondent by her and in order to conceal her own mental aberration, she is alleging such false things. The reply to these allegations given in earlier paragraphs may be treated as reply to the same allegations stated herein. The falsity of her allegations can be seen by looking at the present plight of our only child. A child when craved for her father’s love and patting was forcefully snatched from his hands and injected poisonous ideas about her father and thereby petitioner tried to get the support of the child. But after severing the child totally from her father, she sent away the female child like an orphan to the street. The chain of incidents happened in the child’s life at the instance of petitioner destroyed the very future of the child itself. If the child was brought up by giving the warmth and support of both parents, she would not have such mental crisis faced by her now. The petitioner in fact caused mental agony to this respondent first and thereafter to the child and till now continuing her mental torturing according to her whims and fancies.

32. It is respectfully submitted that the parties are already residing separately and this respondent never compelled or forced to resume cohabitation with him but patiently waiting for her repentance and return . In such a circumstance the motive behind filing of this petition for judicial separation is only to torture this respondent. At the instance of her mother, respondent went to various retreat centres and before Counsellors and as per their advice tried for a reunion , but never compelled her to resume cohabitation forcefully. Her own mother through Consellors convinced both of us that marriage is a sacrament as per Christian belief and should subsist till our death and nobody cannot lightly break off it . No cause of action whatsoever has been arisen on 14.9.1986 or in May 1994 or on any other dates. Similarly the parties last resided not in the matrimonial house at Kochi, but at a flat in Ernakulam .

Hence in the interest of justice, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above petition with compensatory costs, to this respondent otherwise irreparable loss and injury will be caused to respondent.

th Dated this the 27 day of October 2009.

Respondent I, Jijo Punnoose , respondent above named do hereby declare that what is stated above are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Respondent

Filed on : 27.10.2009

BEFORE THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM

O.P. No. 1119 /2009

Liza Paul: Petitioner

Vs.

Jijo Punnoose: Respondent

OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

Case posted to: 12.11.2009

RESPONDENT

While here for mediation, I notice that this 3rd floor mediation room's window faced the court room in the adjacent building where the family drama took place during the Kadathanadan Ambadi court hearing. In 1988 I had gone to Kombara - Kattikaren House, Johnyville after court hearing at the end of that day. It is my first time here in this campus of Old High Court after that.

Having not followed up the first notice in court, it is still a mystery why Liza suddenly filed this petition at the family court (in 2009). I walked down to the Providence Road Court for the first hearing from Marble Arch flat, Judges Ave. while staying with Amma. (Amma would be leaving for Muscat in a month's time to join Johny & family where a cooking gas explosion would take place severely burning Bindu). This mediation hearing came up the following year (2010) and in Amma's absence Jomon who had by this time come back from the U.S. did come to 'vouch' for me during the hearing. It was informed to the mediator/judge that if phoned up in Muscat, Amma would be waiting to provide any additional information. Liza quickly opted for a 'compromise' separation decree as below. It is not known whether it was for obtaining an emigrant visa to Canada … or that a plan did exist to file for divorce in Canada despite the terms mentioned here in this

compromise decree.

For me, a nauseating factor was Liza's sudden calling in Aarcha after a temporary reconcile of convenience with our daughter … apparently to give evidence against me. It would seem Liza had for the time being suspended her vitriol against Aarcha's marriage for the unholy purpose of 'unhitching' her own.

IN THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM O.P No. 119 of 2009

Mediated Settlement Agreement under Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure (ADR) Rules, 2008. Report filed under Rule 23 of the Civil Procedure (ADR) Rules, 2008. The parties upon mediation mutually agree as under:- 1. The parties withdraw their rival contentions in the above petition. 2. The parties agree for judicial separation without future claim for Divorce. 3. The above petition can be disposed recording the above terms.

Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2010.

Petitioner Liza Paul Respondent Jijo Punnoose

Sally Chacko Counsel for the petitioner Lilly James Counsel for the respondent Year 2014 this is not true

jijo appachan 9/20/14 to Sudeep.Oommen to [email protected] from [email protected] Hello Sudeep, I am Jijo. I got the court notice you sent on behalf of my Liza. I appreciate the gesture. I wish our acquaintance could have been made under pleasant circumstances. But, I should be fair and admit that I do know you - know more about you than what you would expect of me a stranger. The fact is, I have followed all of Liza's friends. Ah! the blessings of social media. This is to also inform you that I won't be sending the acknowledgement card duly signed. Instead, I have engaged adequate expertise to present my case FS-14-397151. I hope to meet you when I'm there (along with Liza's mother) on the hearing date. Slim though my chances are, I would like to see all facts presented correctly. Prayers! for your soul and Sarah's too. Jijo copy to Linkedin invite Sudeep Oommen CLU,CHS

ATTACHED, love

Sudeep, I love my wife so dearly….. always did! (**P.S. this blurt is quite uncharacteristic of me)

[email protected] 9/20/14 to me Hello Jijo,

Received your mail. Liza is a friend of my family and as such I was doing this to her as a favor since, as she explained, the legal requirement was for a third party to forward this notice. It was done as a favor with no intention of further involvement.

Believe me neither I nor my family have any wish to involve ourselves in your and Liza's personal matters.

Hope we can treat this matter as closed.

Sudeep Sent from my iPhone

jijo appachan 9/20/14 to Sudeep.Oommen hmmm ….. that was quick, for a 4 am EDT!! I think you must be traveling.

Yessir, this topic between us is closed. Except that I would like to add something before signing off … since you mentioned words "family" and "friend". Permit me. I hope I am not imposing.

A friend is somebody who offers 'good advice' to another in need. As such, my Liza needs them - both friendship (poor thing is lonely, despite the vivaciousness she puts out) and advice (since you know her well, I need not elaborate).

And speaking of family, first my family - though an accomplished filmmaker, I hail from a traditional Syrian Christian family where 4 loving nuns (2 sisters of my mother, 2 sisters of my father) had overseen our catechism lessons at the age of 8 during my brother's and my own first Holy Communion. It is the values they had inculcated that denies me the option to divorce my dear wife - even if Liza today demands so.

Now coming to your family values dear Sudeep, even with a malayalee expatriate upbringing you have had, even with the matrimonial tragedy at the very inception of Anglican Church, I am sure that you and Sarah do find meaning in the Word of God "Mark 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” which you always hear in your Church at Kipling Avenue during wedding ceremonies.

Well; Family Values are found in its propagation. You do have a choice to refrain from it quote - without further involving yourself - unquote. I hope you unshackle yourself from the western values (which we see around us everywhere these days) and standup for the ones you & I were brought up.

That is the best I can do without taxing your politeness ….. Over & Out, Jijo. P.S. God Bless Your Family 9/27/14 jijo appachan to Manoj, jomonjy Dear Manoj, Pappa's sisters. Ammachi's sisters This is according to the phone conversation we had. Sr. Emerenciana, Sr. Lincy ATTACHED, filed at (Toronto) Ontario Superior Court, Sr. Celine. Sr. Luene please find the divorce respondentnotice for me from Sisters of Charity Adoration Convent my wife Liza. As requested, I would need a legal counsel in Toronto who can not only handle it efficiently, but given the knowledge you & I have that the case stands in presence of The Most High, also to be done with adequate spiritual strength. I know JesusYouth has such a lawyer there in Toronto. I shall bear all the fees. Generally my contesting this claim for divorce has slim chances to win in Canada - much slimmer than in the U.S. But an important point is that Liza has made some false declaration/s in her filing.

I have been told that (unlike my case that is now into it's 3rd decade), these days such divorce claims after a mere 2-3 years of marriage is rising exponentially in Kochi from Canada alone. It seems couples do that today to expedite remarriages! Really, we have to pray for all of them. Jijo >

Manoj sunny 9/27/14 to me, jomonjy

Dear Jijo, Thank you. I am sending this mail to our person in Toronto - will keep you updated. Socially praying.. God Bless, Manoj Sent from my iPhone

Fr. Augustine Vallooran VC - Divine Retreat Centre 10/14/14 to me From: Suresh Dominic Date: Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:07 AM Subject: Your inquiry To: "Fr. Augustine Vallooran"

Dear Fr. Vallooran, I inquired about the matter that you had asked about. There is no point in the husband appearing in the court. In any case the court will grant her divorce and she will be able to legally marry in Canada. It will be waste of money to travel and pay the lawyer. Only a change of heart could resolve the issue. Suresh Dominic "Give thanks to the LORD, call on his name; make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted". (Isaiah 12:4) jijo appachan 10/14/14 to sureshdominic, Augustine

Dear Mr. Suresh Dominic, This is Jijo Thank you for the reply sent to Fr. Vallooran

I realize that there is no point in contesting this in court. Even here in India these days such a thing would be foolish, waste of time, money & effort and an unnecessary loss of face. But the point is I am duty-bound to make a token resistance. Sort of showing the other cheek, which Fr. Vallooran also agrees with me. I had talked with him 5 minutes ago. The Judge may not even admit it. Yet Mr. Suresh, I need somebody in legal capacity at the said court just to file a response of mine? If not, I would have to go through my professional contacts in NY. (That would be more embarrassing). Unlike in instances 5 to 6 years ago, I doubt today they would give me a canadian entry visa for business travel - since my estranged wife is now resident there. So travel is out. By a response at the court, I wanted to express a dissenting note just for the records.

The past details of the case here in family court at Kochi, I presume I need give to the lawyer once he/ she is engaged to represent me. For, though it may not be decisive in the final outcome, Liza has concealed/ falsely declared facts in her Toronto Court Submission.

My inner voice says along with the past court records, facts & details to merely file a response for contesting her present claim. Even Liza's mother (now at Kochi) who stood by me at the family court proceedings here, insists so. But, it is not in my purpose to pursue the litigation beyond that - lest it be construed that I am a vindictive husband denying my wife her freedom. I am walking a thin line here.

I have noted your phone number, Suresh. There is nothing more at the moment that warrants a phone call. My number noted in the court submission above is defunct. In case of a need, you may please text me at my number Indiacode 960xxxxxxxx7. I shall call back.

Once again thanking you for the trouble you are taking. May God Recompense! Jijo copy to Vallooran Achan

ATTACHED pdf

"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel. (Malachi 2:16/1a)

CONTACT JESUSYOUTH REF: LEGAL ASSISTANCE LYLE BELKIN> [email protected] He is an Orthodox Christian from Russia Suresh Dominic, Goeff Cauchi. jijo appachan 10/20/14 to lbelkin It was not the 6868 number. They gave me a 2064 number. Yes, I did speak to the Lady Ms. Susan Alvero. And, I phoned you Mr. Belkin, seems you are out for lunch. I shall call in one hour. You have the case number pdf details mailed to you.

Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner

MARRIAGE TRIBUNAL Catholic Pastoral Centre 1155 Yonge Street Suite 300 Toronto, Ontario M4T 1W2 (416\ 934-3423 FAX: (416\ 934-3426

KINDLY REFER TO:

CASE NUMBER: TO0lt5/16 CASE NAME: PAUL/Punnoose

October 24.2017

Mr. Jijo Punnoose 20 Palat Sankaran Rcad. Chennai, TN.India, India 600 034

Dear Mr. Punnoose:

Enclosed you will lind a cerliflcate of declaration of nullit1' of 1'our mariage to Liza Paul. This declaration has been made according to the law's of the Roman Catholic Chr,rrch and has no bearin-s ll'hatsoever upon the civil statns of the mariage. Declarations oinr-r1litv never ail'ect the civil status of children. if'any'. This decision rreans that 1.ou are now free tiom the bond of that marriage.

The declaration of nullity is not all automatic authorization for \olr to be rnanied in the Catholic Church. Care must be taken to ensure tl-rat the drlflcLrlties present in the previous mariage u,i11 not be present in any neu'mariage. The Tribr-rnal procedure fbcused on the past. but special preparation requirements may be required to ensure vour present ability to sustain a marriage. Each situation is unique. In manl' Catholic dioceses the clergy are required to obtain permission from diocesan authorities to proceed u'ith any new mariage.

Should you wish to marry in tl-re Catholic Church. please present this certitjcate to the priest who will be arranging this neu, man'iage with you.

If you have already entered another mariage (e.g., at City HaU or in a non-Catholic Church), please present this certificate to the priest at your parish so that he may proceed with arrangements lor mariage in the Catholic Church.

With every best wish and kind prayerful regards, I remain sincerely.

Rev. Msgr. Lawrence Bordonaro, CHH, JCD Judicial Vicar LB lpr \

D n cnqRArrotY o F I{ utLrrY

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE MARRIAGE OF

LIZA PAUL & JIJO PUI{NOOSE

WHICH TOOK PLACE

ON SEPTEMBER 14,1986 IN ERIIAKULAM, KERALA, INDIA

AT ST. MARY CATHEDRAL BASILICA

I4/AS DECLARED NULL AND VOID according to the laws of the Roman Catholic Church by

Tno TonoNro RretoNat Mz,rruutoytzl TrunttNat at Toronto, Ontario, Canada on September 6, 2017.

This declaration is a church matter only and has no bearing whatsoever on the civil status of that marriage.

Given at the Tribunal, Toronto, Ontario This 24th day of October, 2017.

JUDICIAL VICAR

NOTARY

TO115/16 PAUL/Punnoose LS Psalm 109

1 My God, whom I praise, do not remain silent, 2for people who are wicked and deceitful have opened their mouths against me; they have spoken against me with lying tongues.

21 But you, Sovereign Lord, help me for your name's sake; out of the goodness of your love, deliver me. 22For I am poor and needy, and my heart is wounded within me. 231 fade away like an evening shadow; I am shaken off like a locust. 24My knees give way from fasting; my body is thin and gaunt. 251 am an object of scorn to my accusers; when they see me, they shake their heads. 26Help me, Lord my God; save me according to your unfailing love. 27Let them know that it is your hand, that you, Lord, have done it. 28While they curse, may you bless; may those who attack me be put to shame, but may your servant rejoice. 29May my accusers be clothed with disgrace and wrapped in shame as in a cloak. 30With my mouth I will greatly extol the Lord; in the great throng of worshipers I will praise him. 31 For he stands at the right hand of the needy, to save their lives from those who would condemn them.

posted by Liza on her facebook page on 8th Sept. The very next day. (my namesake's day and that of many anniversaries)