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

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