Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will

Kerala High Court Upholds ‘Desperate Outcry of Wife - Dismisses Husband’s Appeal for Divorce”

06 September 2024 5:50 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Kerala dismissed two appeals from a husband seeking divorce and contesting the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of his wife. The case saw Judges Anil K. Narendran and Sophy Thomas rendering the judgment.

The husband had accused his wife of filing false complaints against him to his employer and legal authorities. He argued that her actions amounted to cruelty and were grounds for dissolving the marriage. He further contended that she had defamed him, thereby jeopardizing his employment.

However, the court rejected these arguments, stating that the wife’s email to the husband’s employer was not a cruel act. “On going through Ext.B12, we could see that it was the outcry of a desperate wife, to live with her husband, after bringing him back to normalcy, and she was seeking assistance of his employer for that purpose,” observed Justice Sophy Thomas. The court further found that there was an admission on the husband’s part that he had sought psychiatric consultation, lending credibility to the wife’s claims.

The court leaned on precedents like Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja and Beena M.S v. Shino G. Babu to underline the complexities of what constitutes ‘cruelty’ in matrimonial cases. The judges, however, clarified that the wife’s actions did not fall under this category.

The court upheld the Family Court’s decision, which had found the husband “not eligible to get a decree of divorce,” while the wife was “entitled to get a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.”

This landmark ruling sets a precedent on what may or may not constitute cruelty, potentially impacting future matrimonial cases in the legal system.

Date of Decision: 17 October 2023

XXXX vs XXX 

Similar News