Mutation Cannot Be Granted Solely on the Basis of a Will Without Civil Court Adjudication: Karnataka High Court Refusal to Cohabit for an Extended Period is Cruelty: Kerala High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Trademark Law Does Not Permit Dissecting a Composite Mark Into Individual Parts: Bombay High Court Overturns Refusal of ‘KHADI PRAKRITIK PAINT’ Device Mark Summary Security Force Court Should Be Convened Only in Cases of Grave and Imminent Necessity: Delhi High Court Quashes BSF Court-Martial, Orders Reinstatement of Ex-Constable A Registered Sale Deed Creates a Presumption of Valid Execution: Gujarat High Court Madras High Court Quashes Income Tax Assessments for Lack of Satisfaction Note Under Section 153C Repeated Bail Applications Without New Grounds Are an Abuse of Process: P&H High Court Denies Bail to Accused in ₹1.34 Crore Sextortion and Cyber Fraud Case Mere Recovery of Money Without Proof of Demand and Acceptance Insufficient for Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Acquits Appellant in Corruption Case A Registered FIR Delay is Not Always Fatal—Murder Conviction Sustained Based on Reliable Witness Testimonies: Punjab & Haryana High Court Supreme Court Strikes Down Income Tax Authorities' Rigid Interpretation of Compounding Guidelines Justice Cannot Be Selective: Supreme Court Orders SIT Probe into “One-Sided” Investigation of Suicide Case Following Inter-Religious Relationship Tragedy Mere Harsh Words Cannot Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under Section 306 IPC General Allegations Against Extended Relatives in Dowry Harassment Cases Cannot Lead to Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings Either Life Imprisonment or a Maximum of 10 Years – No Scope for 12 Years: Supreme Court Corrects High Court's Sentencing Error Legislature's Intent Clear: Dealers in Cooked Food Can Opt for 0.5% Tax on Resale Goods: Kerala High Court Review Powers Under Repealed Act Invalid, Says Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nestle Tax Case Last Seen Theory Without Corroboration Cannot Establish Guilt: Supreme Court Acquits Raja Khan Loss of a Right Hand for a Labourer is a Near-Total Disability: Supreme Court Increases Motor Accident Compensation to ₹20.55 Lakh Supreme Court Upholds Repeal of Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976; Allows Delegation of Permit Granting Powers to STA Secretary Insurance Cannot Be Denied on Arbitrary Technicalities: Supreme Court Slams National Insurance for Unfair Claim Rejection Possession Under a Void Transaction Ripens Into Adverse Ownership Over Time: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Refusal to Cohabit for an Extended Period is Cruelty: Kerala High Court Upholds Divorce Decree

08 February 2025 11:47 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


Kerala High Court dismissed a wife's appeal challenging the divorce decree granted by the Family Court, Vatakara, affirming that the prolonged separation of spouses amounts to cruelty. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents, emphasizing that an irretrievable breakdown of marriage itself constitutes cruelty on both sides.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen upheld the divorce granted under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in Matrimonial Appeal No. 832 of 2017 (Sijina v. Saju V.K.), ruling that keeping unwilling spouses tied in a failed marriage serves no purpose.

Cruelty and Irretrievable Breakdown: Key Legal Considerations
The marriage between the appellant-wife (Sijina) and the respondent-husband (Saju V.K.) was solemnized on May 20, 2011, and a daughter was born in wedlock. The husband sought divorce on the ground of cruelty, alleging that the wife was ill-tempered, cruel towards him and his family, and had undergone prolonged treatment for mental illness. The wife, in turn, countered with allegations of cruelty by the husband and his mother.

Despite these allegations, neither party could provide cogent evidence to substantiate their claims. However, the undisputed fact remained that the couple had been living separately since August 20, 2015, without any cohabitation. The Family Court granted divorce, holding that the wife had subjected the husband to cruelty.

Prolonged Separation Amounts to Mental Cruelty
The High Court noted that while allegations of cruelty and mental illness lacked substantive proof, the crucial aspect was the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, evidenced by the fact that the spouses had lived apart for nearly a decade.

"From 2015 onwards, the wife is living separately from the husband. Refusal to live with the spouse also amounts to cruelty."

Relying on Rakesh Raman v. Kavitha [2023 SCC OnLine SC 497], the Court reiterated that prolonged separation, even in the absence of fault-based cruelty, can itself be a ground for divorce.

"Cruelty need not always be a fault attributable to one party alone. In cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, keeping spouses together amounts to cruelty on both sides."

Binding Supreme Court Precedents on Irretrievable Breakdown
The Court cited Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [2023 SCC OnLine SC 544], which held that where a marriage has irretrievably broken down, dissolution of marriage is the only just solution.

Further, in Civil Appeal No. 5454 of 2023 [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727], the Supreme Court reaffirmed that forcing unwilling parties to remain in a marriage that has completely collapsed causes further cruelty.

"In a recent decision of the apex court, it has been held that keeping the parties together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides."

No Justification to Interfere with Divorce Decree
While the High Court acknowledged that the Family Court had granted divorce on different grounds, it upheld the decree based on the principle that legal ties should not be maintained when the marital bond has ceased to exist in reality.

"Though for varying reasons from that held by the Family Court, we do not find any reason to upset the decree of divorce."

Final Verdict – Appeal Dismissed
The Kerala High Court dismissed the wife’s appeal, affirming the Family Court's decision to grant divorce. The judgment underscores the evolving approach of courts in recognizing irretrievable breakdown as a legitimate ground for divorce, even in the absence of legislative amendment.

Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen concluded: "Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs."

This ruling reinforces the judicial trend of recognizing prolonged separation as mental cruelty. While Indian divorce law does not explicitly recognize irretrievable breakdown as a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, courts have increasingly relied on this doctrine through judicial interpretation.

The Kerala High Court’s judgment aligns with recent Supreme Court rulings, ensuring that marriages that exist only on paper are not forced to continue, thereby preventing unnecessary hardship to parties.
 

Date of decision: 05 February 2025

Similar News