Kerala High Court Dissolves 38 Yrs Old Marriage, Says Retaining Marriage Even After Irretrievable Break Down Amounts To Cruelty

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday reiterated that retaining a marriage that has irretrievably broken down would amount to cruelty to both parties, and no meaningful purpose would be served by the same.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas, took note of a recent Apex Court decision which laid down that keeping parties together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727].

The 60-year-old appellant, who is the husband of the respondent herein, filed the present appeal on being aggrieved by the dismissal of the plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appellant claimed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and the refusal to issue consent for mutual separation ought to be treated as cruelty. 

The appellant averred that he had been neglected by his wife and two children, and that he had not even been invited to the wedding of his son. He added that the respondent left the matrimonial in 2017 without any reason. The respondent however, denied the allegations levelled against her, and submitted that minor bickering in the marriage could not be treated as cruelty.

The Family Court found the allegations as not constituting any mental or physical cruelty to grant a decree of divorce, and dismissed the plea. 

The Division Bench in this case noted that the marriage, now 38 years old, could not be revived. It also took note that the appellant was living alone. Relying upon the Apex Court decisions in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), and Beena M.S v. Shino G. Babu (2022), the Court proceeded to hold:

"...retaining the marriage itself is a cruelty to both the parties and no meaningful purpose would be served". 

It thus allowed the Appeal and dissolved the marriage between the parties. 

Counsel for the Appellant: Advocates Prabhu K.N. and Manumon A.

Counsel for the Respondent: Advocates Arun Ashok, Neena James, and P.P. Sanju

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 498