Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15668
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sathish Ninan, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
JOSE T. – Appellant
Versus
ANITHA S. – Respondent
Mat.Appeal 172/2014
SRI.C.S.MANILAL, SRI.S.NIDHEESH, R.V. Sreejith, G.MAHESWARY(K/1688/2001), T.RINI(K/1194/2000), HARIGOVIND S.NAIR(K/933/2022), NIDHIN KRISHNA(K/1164/2004), ANAKHA BABU(K/324/2023)
The court established that prolonged separation without cohabitation indicates an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, justifying divorce and adjusting maintenance based on financial needs.
Headnote:(A) Family Law - Divorce - Maintenance - The husband appealed against the Family Court's dismissal of his divorce petition, while the wife sought enhancement of maintenance. The court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, warranting a decree of divorce. The wife's maintenance was enhanced to ₹2,500/- per month until March 2025, and ₹3,000/- thereafter. (Paras 10-12, 13)
(B) Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - The court emphasized that prolonged separation without cohabitation indicates the end of the marital relationship, supporting the need for divorce. (Paras 11-12)
(C) Maintenance - The court acknowledged the husband's financial responsibilities while enhancing the wife's maintenance based on her claims of insufficient income. (Paras 13)
Facts of the case:
The parties were married on 18.10.2000 and have two children. They have been living separately since 2004, with allegations of cruelty and infidelity from both sides. The husband filed for divorce, and the wife sought increased maintenance.
Findings of Court:
The court found the marriage irretrievably broken and granted a divorce, while also enhancing the wife's maintenance.
Issues: The main issues were whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down and the appropriate amount of maintenance for the wife.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prolonged separation indicated the marriage's end, and the wife's maintenance was adjusted based on her financial needs and the husband's obligations.
Result: Mat. Appeal No. 172 of 2014 is allowed; RP(FC) No. 309 of 2015 is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
Mat. Appeal No. 172 of 2014 is filed by the husband against the judgment of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, dismissing OP No. 764 of 2008 for divorce.
2. RP(FC) No.309 of 2015 is filed by the wife against the impugned order of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, rejecting her claim for enhancement of maintenance in MC No.138 of 2013.
3. Since the issues arose from the very same cause of action and the parties are the same, the cases are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, “husband” and “wife”.
4. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18.10.2000. Two children were born in the wedlock. According to the husband, his wife suspected him of having relationships with other women from the early days of their marriage. The husband alleged that the wife never joined him for visiting his relatives or attending marriages. She is a quarrelsome lady and made allegations that he has an illicit relationship with his brother’s wife, which caused much pain and agony to him. The wife is a postgraduate and the husband is an under graduate. She used to stay away from the matrimonial home and after delivery of the first child, she was brought back with the intervention of close relatives and friends. It is also his allegation that the wife did not attend his mother’s funeral. After the birth of the second child in 2003, she left the matrimonial home and they have been living separately since 10.08.2004. The husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in 2007, which was later withdrawn since the wife did not show any interest to join him. Hence, the husband sought a divorce.
5. The wife, on the other hand, contended that she was treated with cruelty demanding more dowry and also the husband used to mock her, saying that she is not fair. The wife denied the allegations of having accused her husband of having illicit relationships with other women. However, she did not deny the specific allegation that her husband had an illicit relationship with husband’s brother's wife, Latha. The wife contended that after the delivery of the second child, the husband was reluctant to take her back to the matrimonial home. He never took her along with him. After the second delivery, the husband got an appointment as Police Constable and thereafter, he used to harass her saying that she is not a good match for him. The brother’s wife, Latha, used to interfere with their family matters and make life miserable. The wife expressed her willingness to reside with the husband in his quarters and not in the matrimonial home.
6. The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition filed by the husband finding that the mental cruelty alleged by the husband against the wife was not proved. Challenging this, the husband is in appeal.
7. The wife filed MC No. 138 of 2013 claiming enhanced maintenance to her and to the younger child. She alleged that she is not having any income. The elder son is with the husband and the younger one is with her. She claimed that she is an undergraduate and had taken tuitions on earlier occasions, but stopped after getting married, whereas the husband, a Police Constable, earns a monthly salary of around ₹30,000/-. In an earlier proceeding as MC No.32 of 2007, maintenance was granted @ ₹1,500/- per month to the wife and @ ₹1,000/- per month to the younger son. In the present proceedings, she sought enhanced maintenance @ 5,000/- each to both.
8. The husband contended that the wife abandoned the elder son and the husband; and they have been living separately since 2004. He also contended that the wife is having landed properties with 150 yeilding rubber trees therein and is earning ₹250/- per day. It was further contended that the wife is taking private tuitions for SSLC and plus two students and is earning ₹5,000/- per month. The husband sought for a dismissal of the petition, contending that he has to take care of hi
