Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

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