Forcing Spouse To Continue Broken Marriage, Denying Separation Perpetuates Mental Agony And Constitutes 'Cruelty': Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently granted permission for the dissolution of marriage upon the wife's request, despite the husband seeking dismissal of the petition and not pursuing divorce.
The Court stated that parties were unable to lead a meaningful matrimonial life and that forcing one spouse to continue in marriage would create mental agony and that would undermine the purpose of marriage.
The matrimonial appeal was filed by the appellant/wife against the dismissal of her original petition seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of matrimonial cruelty.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P.M. Manoj stated thus:
“In the case at hand, both parties are unable to lead a meaningful matrimonial life due to inherent differences of opinion. One party is seeking separation, while the other is not ready for it. This situation creates mental agony and cruelty for the spouse who is denied separation. Forcing the continuation of the marriage under such circumstances undermines the purpose of marriage, which is to uphold matrimonial ties lifelong, respecting the mutual obligation of rights. Marriage should be a union based on mutual respect, love, and understanding. 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 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.”
In this case, the appellant and respondent got married in 1997 and they have two children.
The appellant completed an engineering degree and secured a job in KSEBL, while the respondent had a basic education and worked in a private job. It is alleged that respondent got inferiority complex due to the better education and job of the appellant. It is alleged that respondent mentally and physically abused appellant stating that she has bad astrological signs (chovva dosham) and brought him bad luck.
It is also stated that Family Court failed to consider oral evidence of appellant and their daughter and dismissed petition stating that there is lack of specific instances of cruelty.
The respondent contended that this was a false case. It was alleged that appellant had superiority complex of being a government employee that the respondent was only a low paid employee. He denied allegations of cruelty and sought for dismissal of petition seeking divorce.
The Family Court rejected divorce stating that there is lack of specific dates and details proving cruelty.
The High Court noted it is not possible to keep track of every single incident especially amidst ongoing harassment and abuse. The Court further noted that appellant was only 52 years old, while the respondent was 62 years old.
Considering the strain in their relationship amidst the conflict and age gap, the court said , “Marriage should be a stable relationship where a man and woman are socially permitted to live together for their well-being. Given the age and ongoing conflict, it is clear that continuing this marriage will not serve the intended purpose of a supportive and harmonious union.”
Relying upon Apex Court decisions, the Court considered the scope of the term cruelty which could be physical or mental. Referring to Apex Court decision in K. Srinivas Rao v D A Deepa (2013), the Court took note of the unbridgeable distance between spouses and the consequent irretrievable breakdown of marriage to order separation.
The Court relied upon other Apex Court decisions to state that denial of separation by one spouse when the parties were unable to sustain a meaningful matrimonial life would cause mental agony and amount to cruelty.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the matrimonial appeal and set aside the order of the Family Court. It thus dissolved their marriage.
Counsel for Appellant: Advocates Mathew Kuriakose, Moni George ,J.Krishnakumar (Adoor), C N Prakash, Shaji P K , Arun S , Preethu Jagathy
Counsel for Respondents: Advocate Arun Thomas
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 454
Case Title: Geetha S v Pradeep G
Case Number: MAT.APPEAL NO. 762 OF 2023