Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40192
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
SABARINATH M.S., – Appellant
Versus
NETHU M., – Respondent
Mat.Appeal/837/2020
B.MOHANLAL, C.R.SYAMKUMAR, ASWIN KUMAR M, J. HELEN P.A., ARUN ROY(K/413/2019), SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
Cruelty, as established through persistent disputes and serious accusations within a marriage, can constitute valid grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Headnote:
Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13 (1) (ia) - The court focused on the interpretation of cruelty as a ground for divorce, ultimately determining that the husband's evidence of ongoing disputes and accusations was credible, allowing the dissolution of the marriage.
Fact of the Case:
The husband filed for divorce citing cruelty after facing repeated accusations from the wife and an incident of her threatening suicide due to family disputes. The wife countered with allegations of harassment over dowry demands. The Family Court initially dismissed the husband's petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed evidence of ongoing disputes, focusing on the credibility of the allegations made by both parties. It concluded that the wife's behavior created an intolerable situation amounting to cruelty, and the husband's petition for divorce was justified.
Issues: Whether the husband's claims of cruelty and the wife's counterclaims negate the grounds for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that persistent accusations and threats of suicide by the wife constituted cruelty, validating the husband's grounds for divorce despite counterclaims of dowry harassment.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the marriage was dissolved.
J U D G M E N T
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQU E, J.
This appeal is at the instance of the husband. The petition filed by the husband for divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed. It is challenging this, he has come up with this appeal.
2. Heard Shri. Mohanlal, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri.Syamkumar, the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Before we refer to the facts, certain aspects are to be adverted herein. The petition for divorce was initially allowed exparte on 19.03.2014. Thereafter, the husband remarried on 25.06.2016. An application for setting aside the exparte decree was filed by the respondent-wife, which was allowed on 03.03.2016.
4. The order allowing the application to set aside the exparte decree was challenged before this Court. However, this Court did not interfere with the order passed by the Family Court.
5. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their marital status. The marriage was solemnized in accordance with the Hindu customs and ceremonies on 05.05.2011. It was an arranged marriage. It is now reported at the Bar that the appellant-husband is living in Australia and the wife is in America. 6. The case of the husband is that from the very beginning of the marriage itself the respondent-wife was not happy with him. According to him, the wife agreed to the marriage on account of the compulsion of her parents. It is stated in the petition that for trivial reasons, the wife used to pick-up quarrels with the husband and she used to say, she would have got a better wealthy husband than him.
7. One of the main allegations in the petition is the attribution of the husband having an extra-marital relationship with another woman. It is also stated that the respondent on several occasions had made threat of suicide. A specific instance of such threat was referred to in connection with the marriage of the wife's cousin namely Vidya held on 05.02.2012. According to the husband, neither he nor his parents were invited for the marriage and he was not prepared to attend the engagement ceremony. Since they refused to accompany the wife, she threatened to commit suicide by cutting her vein and remained locked in the room. It is also alleged that the respondent after conceiving, aborted her pregnancy without the consent of the husband.
8. The appellant-husband was examined as PW1. He deposed in tune with this petition. However, he admitted that he gave consent for abortion. According to him, he gave consent for abortion as there was a threat of suicide on the side of his wife. The husband's mother was examined as PW2. The mother of the husband is a retired Sub Registrar from the service of the State Government. She also deposed that her son always have been accused of having relationship with other women. She also reiterated upon the incident when the respondent-wife threatened to commit suicide by cutting the vein. The case put forward by the respondent-wife is in the nature of denial of the above facts. According to her, the marriage was happy all along. It was her case that she was prevented from attending her cousin Vidya's engagement by the husband and her family even though they were invited to attend such a function. According to her, the demand for divorce is on account of the fact that the respondent-wife and her family refused to give the gold and money demanded by the husband and his family. The wife raised a counter allegation of cruelty against the husband and his family.
On the side of the wife, she was examined as RW1.
9. The evidence in this case mainly consists of oral evidence on side of the parties, no documentary evidence has been let in by both the parties. The ground as cruelty has been adverted by the Family Court and found that all that led to the differences is in relation to the engagement ceremony of Vidya, the cousin of the wife, and the parties have failed to handle a situation in a matured way. It is noted that after the above incident, t
