Woman Seeking Divorce From 'Loveless Marriage' Not Expected To Recall Each And Every Incident Of Cruelty: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that a woman who complains of being in a loveless relationship with her husband who is allegedly living a wayward life and acting under the influence of alcohol would not be able to enumerate each and every incident of cruelty.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar were considering an appeal filed against the decision of the Family Court in a divorce petition.

The appellant had an acquaintance with the respondent when she was very young and they developed a close relationship with each other. When her parents became aware of it, they sent her to a boarding school and later to a college. However, during this time, the appellant and the respondent maintained contact.

The respondent married another woman but he convinced the appellant that he had to do it under the pressure of his parents. He said that he thought of the appellant, especially in intimate moments with his wife. The petitioner submitted that she was young and naïve and unfortunately fell for these persuasions and eloped with him in 2001, while she was 17 years old. He divorced his wife in 2004. The petitioner and respondent married in 2005 and a child was born to them in 2007.

The petitioner due to the respondent's persuasion agreed to a Church Marriage. They were both ex-communicated from their respective communities after their elopement and subsequent life together.

It was stated that the respondent was almost always under the influence of alcohol and had immoral relationships with other women. The petitioner stated that she was always in fear as he exhibited deviant tendencies under the influence of alcohol.

It was stated that she endured everything hoping things would get better but this hope was lost when one day, he assaulted the petitioner brutally and locked her in a room and she was rendered unable to call for help.

The respondent submitted that the appellant was wrong in falling in love with a married man with a child. He stated that he was forced to marry the appellant because she threatened to kill herself unless he deserted his wife and family.

The Family Court held that the disputes between the parties were part of 'ordinary wear and tear of family life' and did not grant the parties divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

The High Court observed that the appellant was left without any succour even from her family and ex-communicated from her community. She had to rely on the petitioner for emotional, physical and other needs. The Court said:

“The afore scenario cannot perhaps be explained semantically, but can only be understood by someone who experience it; particularly being forced to live in a loveless life, with despondency and hopelessness.”

The Court also held that a single incident of assault may not justify the grant of divorce, but in this case, the issue exacerbated over the years, with the wife reduced to feelings of self-worthlessness and despondency.

The Court observed that matrimonial cruelty cannot be defined with mathematical precision and exactitude. It depends upon many criteria like the atmosphere, psychological impact, mental state of the person, age and socio-economic status of the victim. It cannot be held as a general rule that a particular action is cruelty or otherwise. The Court said that there is no universal definition of cruelty as it relies on a person's personal interpretation and emotional response to the behaviour in question.

The Court further observed that matrimonial cruelty is sometimes perceived as a 'part and parcel of marriage and the effects are endured more by the woman in the relationship.

The Court also hit out at the arguments made by the respondent saying that he took an extremely patriarchal position. It rejected the respondent's argument that he was the one who was ill-treated in the marriage and observed that this claim is not corroborated and there is no mention of this in the pleadings or evidence.

Since the appellant graphically explained the assault and trauma she went through at the hands of the respondent, the Court held that there was no reason to disbelieve her.

Hence, the Court set aside the order of the Family Court and allowed the divorce.

Counsel for Appellant: Advocates A. Parvathi Menon, P. Sanjay, Biju Meenattoor, Indira K. P., Paul Varghese, P. A. Mohammed Aslam. Kiran Narayanan, Rahul Raj P., Amrutha M. Nair, Muhammed Bilal V. A.

Counsel for Respondent: Advocate R. Jayakrishnan

Case No: Mat. Appeal No: 1131 of 2017

Case Title: Litty Mary John v Manoj K. Varghese

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 492