Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay 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