MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Victim Entitled to General Damages for Marital Torts – Kerala High Court Modifies Compensation in Matrimonial Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision today, the Kerala High Court, presided over by the Honourable Mr. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Mr. Justice Johnson John, revisited the complex dynamics of matrimonial disputes, emphasizing the rights of victims to receive general damages for marital torts. The judgment comes in the wake of a contentious appeal involving allegations of impotency and claims for compensation and maintenance.

The case, which revolved around the appellant N. Rajees and the respondent Kavitha Rajees, initially saw the Family Court in Kollam dismiss the appellant’s plea for dissolution of marriage on grounds of impotency. Subsequently, the respondent’s counterclaim for restitution of conjugal rights was upheld, leading to a significant award for compensation and maintenance.

In a critical observation that shaped the headline of the ruling, the High Court stated, “It cannot be disputed that the victim is entitled for general damages, which the law will presume to be natural and probable consequences of the wrongful act.” This remark underscores the court’s stance on the importance of acknowledging the impact of baseless allegations in marital relationships.

The High Court meticulously reviewed the quantum of compensation and maintenance awarded by the lower court. While it upheld the monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000, it notably reduced the compensation for the marital tort from Rs. 10,00,000 to Rs. 5,00,000. Additionally, the past maintenance was modified from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000 per month for the period from November 1, 2003, to October 30, 2006.

This ruling is particularly significant in its acknowledgment of the emotional and reputational damage that can be inflicted in matrimonial disputes. The court’s decision to reduce the compensation, while still substantial, reflects a careful consideration of the evidence pertaining to the income, assets, and living standards of both parties.

The case also referenced notable precedents, including Rajnesh v. Neha and another [(2021) 2 SCC 324] and RD v. BD [2019 SCC Online Del 9526: (2019) 7 AD 466], providing a comprehensive legal framework for similar cases in the future.

Advocates representing both parties, including Sri.V.T.Madhavanunni, Sri.Grashious Kuriakose Sr., and Sri.V.A.Satheesh for the appellant, and Sri.K.N.Chandrababu, Shri.S.Ganesh, T.Krishnanunni (K-197), and Sri.P.Sivaraj for the respondent, were present during this significant judgment.

The ruling is seen as a pivotal moment in matrimonial law, with the High Court setting a precedent for how compensation and maintenance should be considered in cases involving marital torts, balancing legal principles with the nuanced realities of marital relationships.

Date of Decision: 16 November  2023

N.RAJEES VS KAVITHA RAJEES                  

Latest Legal News