Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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

Latest Legal News