Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court

"Family Court ought to have looked into the aspects of whether there was a valid marriage, a mutual consent petition is filed by the parties and whether they are agreeable for a divorce." Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a Family Court cannot dismiss a petition for divorce by mutual consent simply because the parties stated they were living separately without a "valid reason."

A Division Bench comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that when both spouses categorically state they desire a divorce and have not withdrawn their consent, the court is duty-bound to grant the decree if the statutory requirements of the Divorce Act, 1869 are met.

Brief Background Of The Case

The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married in May 2023 according to Roman Catholic rites. Due to irreconcilable differences, they began living separately from June 2024 and subsequently filed a joint petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 10A of the Divorce Act before the Family Court, Thalassery. After the mandatory six-month cooling period and unsuccessful counselling, the parties filed proof affidavits reiterating their desire for divorce.

Family Court Dismissed Petition Citing Lack Of Mutual Consent

However, during the recording of statements, the husband deposed that they were living separately "for no reason." Relying on this statement, the Family Court dismissed the original petition, concluding that there was no valid reason for separation and therefore no genuine mutual consent between the parties. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the wife approached the High Court.

Legal Issues Before The Court

The primary question before the court was whether the Family Court was justified in dismissing a mutual consent petition on the grounds that the parties failed to provide a "valid reason" for their separation. The court was also called upon to determine if the husband’s statement regarding the lack of a specific reason for separation amounted to a withdrawal of consent for the divorce.

Scope Of Inquiry Under Section 10A Of The Divorce Act

The High Court observed that in a petition filed under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, the Family Court’s inquiry should be limited to specific statutory parameters. The bench noted that the court must satisfy itself that the marriage was solemnised, that the averments in the petition are true, and that the parties are indeed agreeable to the dissolution of the marriage.

Court Rejects Need For Specific Reasons For Separation

The bench emphasized that the trial court erred in searching for a "valid reason" for the couple's separate residence. It noted that the counsel for the appellant rightly relied on precedents suggesting that courts should not probe into the underlying reasons for parties not staying together in a mutual consent petition.

Husband’s Categorical Demand For Divorce Overlooked

Upon perusing the depositions, the High Court found that despite the husband stating they lived separately for no reason, he had categorically stated in his testimony that he wanted a divorce and that the petition was filed of his own free will. The bench found that the Family Court had ignored these vital parts of the testimony while focusing solely on the lack of a defined reason for the separation.

"The respondent had categorically stated that he wants divorce. The Family Court ought to have looked into the aspects of whether there was a valid marriage, a mutual consent petition is filed by the parties and whether they are agreeable for a divorce."

Absence Of Consent Withdrawal

The court further highlighted that there was absolutely no evidence on record to suggest that either party had withdrawn their consent. It observed that both the wife and the husband had clearly stated before the trial court that they wanted the marriage to end. Therefore, the High Court found the Family Court's conclusion regarding the absence of mutual consent to be entirely unwarranted and legally unsustainable.

"In the present case, there is no withdrawal of any consent as seen from the depositions... Hence, the Family Court ought not have dismissed the petition for divorce."

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Family Court, Thalassery. It held that the marriage solemnized between the parties on May 13, 2023, stands dissolved from the date of the High Court's judgment. The ruling reaffirms that the autonomy of the parties to mutually end a marriage must be respected by the courts, provided the procedural requirements are satisfied, without judicial interference into the private reasons for their separation.

Date of Decision: 31 March 2026