Kerala High Court: In an appeal filed by the wife challenging the judgment passed by the Family Court, which had dismissed her petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, Raja Vijayaraghavan V and P.M. Manoj*, JJ. allowed the appeal and dissolved the marriage between the parties while observing that refusal to acknowledge the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage does more harm than good.
Background
The parties got married in 1997 and had two children. It was contended by the wife that her husband was a spendthrift and did not look after her or the children. She further submitted that serious differences arose between the parties after she obtained a B.Tech. degree and secured a job, while the husband had basic qualifications and had a job inferior to her. She submitted that he acquired an inferiority complex and started physically and mentally abusing her, alleging that she had a problem with astrological signs and by marrying her, he attracted bad luck. The wife said that she filed a petition seeking divorce as it became difficult for her to sustain the relationship.
Before the Family Court, the husband denied every allegation. The wife had also filed for maintenance, whereby the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs 60,000/- to the wife, however, the wife had not provided an account number where he could deposit such sum. The husband contended that he was employed in Tamil Nadu and sought for dismissal of the petition.
Upon evaluation of the evidence, the Family Court held that the version of the wife and daughter could not be relied upon as they had failed to provide specific instances and dates as regards the cruelty that had been alleged against the husband.
The wife contended that the Family Court had erred in disbelieving her oral evidence regarding the misappropriation of gold for the mere reason that she had not filed a petition to recover the gold ornaments or its value.
The husband submitted that there existed no serious dispute between him and his wife, and whatever dispute they had between them was only because of her superiority complex of being a government employee and him having a low paying job.
Decision and Analysis
Upon hearing both parties, the Court noted that the wife had asserted the parties lived together only for a few months during which she was subjected to physical and mental harassment, forced to engage in unnatural sex acts and she was threatened with injuries by the husband when she refused to include his name in the deed. The Court also noted that the husband used to abuse the wife and children, which was corroborated by the daughter when she furnished evidence before the Family Court, however the evidence was rejected due to the lack of specific details.
The Court said “in a matrimonial relationship, it is often difficult for spouses to keep track of every single incident that occurs, especially when they are overwhelmed by persistent abuse and harassment. The constant strain can blur the specifics of each incident, making it challenging to recall exact dates and details. This should not undermine the credibility of their experiences or the severity of their claims.”
The Court noted that the wife was 54 years old, and the husband was 62 years old, and given the age and ongoing conflict between the parties it was clear that continuing the marriage would not serve the purpose of a harmonious and supportive union.
The Court said that cruelty may be mental or physical and is evident where one spouse had treated the other and manifested such feelings towards them as to cause reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse.
The Court referred to Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, wherein it was held that for mental cruelty to be inferred, each case had to be considered in light of its own peculiar factual matrix.
The Court noted that in the present case, both parties were unable to lead a meaningful matrimonial life due to differences of opinion and forcing the continuation of marriage under such circumstances undermines the purpose of marriage, which is to uphold matrimonial ties lifelong, respecting the mutual obligation of rights.
The Court said, “when one spouse seeks freedom from a relationship that has become a source of distress, denying this request only perpetuates suffering and contradicts the very essence of a marital bond.”
The Court also said that refusal to acknowledge the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage does more harm than good, inflicting emotional pain and preventing both parties from moving forward with their lives.
The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment by the Family Court, thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties.
[X v. Y, MAT. Appeal No. 762 of 2023, decided on 05-07-2024]
*Judgment Authored by; Justice P. M. Manoj.
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for the appellant: Mathew Kuriakose, Moni George, J. Krishnakumar (Adoor), C.N. Prakash, Shaji P.K., Arun S., Preethu Jagathy, Advocates
Advocate for the respondent: Arun Thomas, Advocate
The post appeared first on .