SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Ker) 174

Judgename : KURIAN JOSEPH,HARUN-UL-RASHID
S.Latha Kunjamma - Appellant
Versus
K.Anilkumar - Respondents
Case No : Mat. Appeal No.360 of 2006
Decided On : 03/24/2008

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:P. Gopakumaran Nair, C.S. Dias, Ajith Murali, Advocates. For the Respondent:Jacob Sebastian, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that mental cruelty, character assassination, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage can constitute grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Headnote:

desertion - dissolution of marriage - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13 (1) (ib), Section 13B - cruelty - mental cruelty - character assassination - irretrievable breakdown of marriage

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion, which was dismissed by the Family Court. The petitioner and respondent, both B.Tech. Degree Holders in Civil Engineering, fell in love, got married, and resided together for a short period before developing aversion towards each other due to temperamental incompatibility. The petitioner claimed that the respondent deserted her since 15-1-2003, while the respondent denied the allegations and accused the petitioner of desertion to join her present fiance.

Finding of the Court:

The Family Court found that the case of desertion set up by the petitioner was not proved, and therefore she was not entitled to a decree of divorce. However, the High Court, after analyzing the evidence, found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to mental cruelty inflicted by the respondent, and the ground of desertion was made out. The court also considered the principle of character assassination and its impact on mental cruelty.

Issues: The issues revolved around the grounds of desertion and mental cruelty, as well as the impact of character assassination and false allegations on the spouse's mental well-being.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that character assassination, false allegations, and mental cruelty in matrimonial proceedings can constitute grounds for divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court also considered the irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the impact of subsequent events on the decision-making process.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Family Court, and granted a decree of divorce, citing the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The court emphasized that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and there was no chance of reconciliation, leading to the dissolution of the marriage.

Judgment :-

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.

This appeal is filed by the petitioner/wife in O.P. No. 554/2006 being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 7-8-2006 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. The Original Petition was filed for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion, which was dismissed finding that the ground of desertion is not proved and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get a decree of divorce against the respondent/ husband under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

2. The parties in this appeal are referred to as petitioner and respondent as in the Original Petition. The short facts pleaded by the petitioner are as follows:

3. The petitioner and the respondent are B.Tech. Degree Holders in Civil Engineering. The petitioner is employed as an accountant in the District Treasury, Palakkad. The respondent is employed in Nirmithi Kendra, Palakkad. Through the acquaintance at the work place the petitioner and the respondent fell in love with each other. Subsequently their marriage was arranged with the blessings of their parents and their relatives and it was solemnized on 7-3-1999 in accordance with their religious rites and ceremonies at Balu Memorial Auditorium, Kollengode.

4. After marriage the petitioner and the respondent resided together in the house of the respondent for about six months. Thereafter they resided in a rented house at Melamuri, Palakkad. From the very beginning of the married life, it appears that the petitioner and the respondent developed aversion towards each other owing to temperamental incompatibility. Within a short period the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent became strained. They realized that they could not continue to reside together as husband and wife. Even though the parents of both parties intervened and tried to resolve the dispute, they could not succeed in their attempt. All of them realized that the marital tie between the petitioner and the respondent has been broken irretrievably.

5. The petitioner and the respondent were convinced that dissolution of their marriage alone will be the solution to their problems. Even though the joint petition for divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed before the Subordinate Judges Court, Palakkad as MOP 40/2004, the respondent did not co-operate at the final stage. Hence that petition was dismissed on 14-12-2005.

6. The petitioner and the respondent resided together at Melamuri till 15-1-2003. The respondent deserted the petitioner since 15-1-2003. Due to the strained relationship the petitioner and the respondent are residing separately for more than two years continuously from 15-1-2003. They are not having any physical contact or mental attachment. There is willful neglect by the respondent towards the petitioner. According to the petitioner it amounts to permanent abandonment without

reasonable cause and amounts to repudiation of marital obligations. The petitioner and the respondent separated from each other intending to put an end to their co-habitation. The conduct of the respondent showed that he desired to put an end to the marital relationship.

7. In the objection filed by the respondent he has denied all the averments in the petition. It is averred that in fact the petitioner only deserted him, that he is ready and willing to accept the petitioner and that the respondent was persuaded to give consent for filing a petition under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act. But when he realized the real intention of the petitioner he was constrained to withdraw his consent. The petitioner is in love with her co-worker, decided to get rid of the respondent and that she has deserted the respondent to join with her present fiance.

8. Thetwo educated youth who are well placed fell in love with each other and got married on 7-3-1999. Both are engineers. According to the petitioner/wife, from the very beginning of their union life was not very cordial due to cultural differences and te





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top