Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18425
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
PRASEEN.K.V., REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HIS MOTHER PREMA VENU – Appellant
Versus
AMBILI.K.A. – Respondent
Mat.Appeal 948 2016
SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SMT.R.RAJITHA, SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR, SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
Unsubstantiated claims of cruelty cannot serve as a basis for divorce, especially when one party shows a consistent willingness to reconcile.
Headnote:
Restitution - Conjugal Rights - Family Courts Act Sections - Summary: The court reinforced the principles surrounding marriage and restitution of conjugal rights, emphasizing that unsubstantiated claims of cruelty and lawful rights to seek restitution must be duly considered in context of the evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed appeals against a decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the respondent and the rejection of his divorce petition. The marriage faced alleged cruelties and complaints from both parties, leading to prolonged separation and litigation.
Finding of the Court:
The Family Court found the husband ineligible for divorce, citing lack of evidence for claimed cruelty, while recognizing the wife's right to restitution as genuine efforts to mend their relationship.
Issues: Whether the alleged actions of the wife constituted cruelty justifying divorce, and whether the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was bonafide.
Ratio Decidendi: Cruelty must be established with clear evidence for divorce; lawful acts by one spouse in seeking help for marital issues cannot constitute grounds for dissolution.
Final Decision: The appeals are dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Sophy Thomas, J.
Husband is the appellant in both these appeals. He filed Mat.Appeal No.948 of 2016 against the decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by his wife in OP No.659 of 2013, and Mat.Appeal No.949 of 2016, against the decree in OP No.444 of
2014, rejecting his prayer for divorce. The wife is the respondent.
2. The facts in brief are as follows:
The marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnised on 07.05.2012. Thereafter they were living together as husband and wife at the house of the appellant, and thereafter in Abu Dhabi. The respondent/wife insulted and ill-treated the appellant in the presence of his relatives. She never respected him and was keeping distance from him. She even spit on his body though apologised later. She sent a complaint to the Managing Supervisor of the Company where he was working, making defamatory statements against him, with a view to terminate his employment. She was not ready to cook food for him. When she was living with his mother at her matrimonial home, she did not attend his mother and even quarreled with her for silly reasons. On 15.01.2013, she left her matrimonial home, taking her belongings, and thereafter filed complaints before the Vanitha Cell as well as before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur. After harassing him by filing false criminal cases, she filed OP No.659 of 2013, for restitution of conjugal rights, without any bonafides. He was apprehending that, he may lose his job, if he was continuing with her. So, he filed OP No.444 of 2014 for dissolving his marriage with the respondent.
3. The respondent/wife filed counter denying the allegations levelled against her. She contended that, the appellant was having some sexual perversions. But, he found fault with her shaming her body size, as well as her complexion. He compelled her to consume medicines for improving her breast size, and he used to compare her with other ladies. To her understanding, the appellant was having some mental problem and so, he was taken to Doctors at Abu Dhabi and also at his native. Though the Doctors prescribed medicines, he discontinued the same and returned to Gulf countries. While she was staying at her matrimonial home, her mother-in-law dropped her in a bus stand, saying that, she wanted to go to her brother’s house. Thereafter, the appellant never permitted her to live in her matrimonial home, and from 15.01.2013 onwards, she is living separate from the appellant. He was not enquiring about her or providing maintenance to her. So, she filed OP No.659 of 2013 for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. After about one year of filing that OP, the husband preferred OP No.444 of 2014, for dissolving their marriage.
4. Both the OPs were tried together by the Family Court.
After formulating necessary issues, the parties went on trial. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A16 were marked from the side of the appellant. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B17 were marked from the side of the respondent.
5. On analysing the facts and evidence, the Family Court found that the husband was not eligible to get a decree of divorce, whereas the wife was entitled to get a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, against which the husband has preferred these appeals.
6. Now we are called upon to answer whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned judgments warranting interference by this Court.
7. The appellant/husband filed OP No.444 of 2014 for dissolving his marriage with the respondent, which was solemnised on 07.05.2012, on the ground of matrimonial cruelties. About one year prior to that OP, the wife had filed OP No.659 of 2013, for restitution of conjugal rights. According to the appellant, the wife was so cruel to him, and she filed complaints against him before his employer, Vanitha Cell as well as before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. So, there was no bonafides from her part in filing an OP for restitution of conjug
