Youngsters Avoiding Marriage To "Enjoy Free Life", Live-In Relationships On Rise : Kerala High Court

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court expressed concerns that the consumerist culture of 'use and throw' has affected matrimonial relationships. The Court lamented that the younger generation is seeing marraige as an "evil", which has to be avoided to "enjoy free life" and that live-in relationships are on the rise.

Remarking upon the sanctity that the institution of marriage has been attributed with, the Division Bench composed of Justice A. Muhammed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas, observed as follows

"Kerala, known as God's own Country, was once famous for its well knit family bondage. But the present trend it seems to break the nuptial tie on flimsy or selfish reasons, or for extra-marital relationships, even unmindful of their children. The wails and screams coming out of disturbed and destroyed families are liable to shake the conscience of the society as a whole. When warring couples, deserted children and desperate divorcees occupy the majority of our population, no doubt it will adversely affect the tranquility of our social life, and our society will have a stunted growth".

Particularly emphasizing upon the younger generations' views on marriage, the Court noted that, 

"Now-a-days, the younger generation think that marriage is an evil that could be avoided to enjoy free life without any liabilities or obligations. They would expand the word 'WIFE' as 'Worry Invited For Ever' substituting the old concept of 'Wise Investment For Ever'. The consumer culture of 'use and throw' seems to have influenced our matrimonial relationships also. Live-in-relationships are on the rise, just to say good-bye when they fell apart".

The judgment authored by Justice Sophy Thomas was delivered in a matrimonial appeal filed by a husband seeking divorce.

According to the factual matrix of the case, the husband had filed an OP (Divorce) before the Family Court, at Alappuzha, on the ground of matrimonial cruelty. The couple who had married as per Christian rites, and had three daughters, were living in Saudi Arabia. It was submitted by the appellant/petitioner, represented by Advocates  Mathew Kuriakose, J. Krishnakumar, and Moni George, that his wife developed some behavioural abnormalities and picked up quarrels with him alleging that he had illicit relationship with other women. It was alleged by him that due to this abusive and violent behaviour of the respondent-wife, he became mentally stressed and physically ill, and hence, filed the petition for divorce. 

The respondent however, represented by Advocates J. John Prakash, P. Pramel, Nimmi Shaji, and Balasubramaniam R., contended that the appellant was merely concocting reasons to keep himself away, and that she never displayed any cruelty, nor had she ever physically assaulted or threatened him, as per his allegations. 

The Court at this juncture could not concede to the appellant's submissions that the behaviour of the wife amounted to matrimonial cruelty, and observed, 

"When the wife had reasonable grounds to suspect the chastity or fidelity of her husband, and if she questions him, or expresses her deep pain and sorrow before him, it cannot be termed as a behavioural abnormality, as it is the natural human conduct of a normal wife. The normal human reactions or responses from a wife, on knowing that her husband was having illicit connection with another lady, cannot be termed as behavioural abnormality or cruelty from the part of the wife, so as to dissolve their marriage".

It was relying upon the testimonies of the witnesses produced, including the mother of the appellant, that the court arrived at its observation. 

It was added that the Courts of the land "could not come to the aid of an erring person to legalise his activities, which are per se illegal". Hence, it was observed that if the husband had indeed, developed an illicit relationship with another woman, he could not rely upon the Courts of the land to come to his aid by dissolving his legally solemnized marriage.

Importantly, it was observed by the Court that in order to amount to 'cruelty' to amount to ground of divorce under Section 10 (1)(X) of the Divorce Act, the appellant would have to establish that since the solemnisation of the marriage, the respondent has treated him with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. 

"Mere quarrels, ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial relationships or casual outburst of some emotional feelings cannot be treated as cruelties warranting a divorce", it was observed.

It was in this light that the court observed that in the instant case, the factual situation clearly showed that the appellant had developed an 'unholy alliance' with another lady, which caused disturbances in their family life, and hence, no such matrimonial cruelty, as able to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the appellant that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent was proved by the appellant. In such circumstances, the Court did not find cause to interfere with the finding of the Family Court, Alappuzha that the appellant was not entitled to decree of divorce on the ground of matrimonial cruelty, and the appeal, was thus, dismissed.

Case Title: xxxx v. xxxx

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 463

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment