Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa 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

Latest Legal News