Wife Not Knowing Cooking, Seeking Assistance Of Husband's Employer To Patch Up Strained Marriage Not 'Cruelty': Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that wife seeking the help of her husband's employer for patching up their broken marital relationship and to bring him back to normal life after finding out his issues, or her not knowing cooking cannot be grounds sufficient to constitute 'cruelty'.

The Division Bench made the above observations in an appeal by the husband against the decree of restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the wife. He also challenged an order rejecting his plea for divorce.

The husband had argued that the marriage was practically and emotionally dead, and that they had been living separately for the past 10 years, and that there was no scope for reunion. 

Relying upon the decision in Uthara v. Sivapriyan (2022), the Court observed, "...legally, one party cannot unilaterally decide to walk out of a marriage, when sufficient grounds are not there justifying a divorce, under the law which governs them, saying that due to non-co-habitation for a considerable long period, their marriage is dead practically and emotionally. No one can be permitted to take an incentive out of his own faulty actions or inactions". 

The appellant husband alleged that the respondent wife had insulted and ill-treated him in the presence of his relatives. It was submitted that the wife made complaint to the Managing Supervisor of the Company where he was working, making defamatory statements against him, with a view to terminate his employment. It was further alleged that the respondent did not know how to cook. She even lodged complaints with Vanitha Cell and Magistrate Court, it was submitted.

The respondent wife had denied the allegations and submitted she wrote to the employer only suspecting behavioural changes, seeking to find the reasons behind it. She further averred that she had been living separately from her husband since 2013, as he had not permitted her in their matrimonial home.

The Court noted that the main ground of cruelty alleged against the wife was that she had sent a mail to the appellant's employer with a view to terminate his job. Perusing the mail, the Court was of the considered opinion that the same was only her desperate attempt to patch up her marriage with the appellant, by seeking the intervention of his employer for the same. 

"...we could read the mind of a desperate wife, who was deserted by her husband. Moreover, she was suspecting some behavioural disorders from the part of the appellant. PW1-the appellant, when examined before court, admitted that in UAE as well as in Kerala, he had consulted Psychiatrist and he was prescribed with medicines also. But, according to him, the Doctor told him that, taking of medicines was only optional. So, there is clear admission from the part of the appellant himself that, there was consultation with the Psychiatrists, which supports the case of the respondent. The respondent wanted to patch up the relationship, and bring him back to normal life, and she was ready to be with him in his ups and downs. So, Ext.B12 e-mail cannot be taken as a cruel act from the part of the respondent, so as to dissolve their marriage," the Court observed. 

The Court further noted that the filing of complaints before the Vanitha Cell as well as the Magistrate Court would also not amount to cruelty, since it was her legal right to do so, if her husband was not providing her with shelter and maintenance. 

The Court also determined that the respondent's failure to prepare food for her husband, and her not knowing the skill was not cruelty. 

As regards the appellant husband's allegation that the respondent had spit on his body in the presence of his relatives, the Court observed that none of the relatives who witnesses the incident were examined and even if it is assumed that the incident did occur, the appellant had "condoned" it by continuing to live together after the respondent allegedly apologised for the act. 

"Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments, dismissing the OP for divorce, and decreeing the OP for restitution of conjugal rights," the Court observed, while dismissing the appeals. 

Counsel for the Appellant: Advocates Santhosh P. Poduval, R. Rajitha, and Vinaya V. Nair

Counsel for the Respondent: Advocate V.M. Krishnakumar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 574