POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme Court

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 

Latest Legal News