Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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