Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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