Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39653
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
TERRY THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
ANGELA – Respondent
Mat.Appeal/5/2016
SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.), SMT.P.R.REENA, SMT.R.ANJANA, SRI.M.B.SANDEEP, SRI.B.SURJITH, SRI.VISAKH ANTONY
The court established that persistent unfounded accusations can constitute mental cruelty sufficient for divorce under the Indian Divorce Act.
Headnote:
Divorce - Family Law - Indian Divorce Act - Sections Implicated - The case involves interpretations of the provisions regarding divorce and maintenance claims under the Indian Divorce Act. The court assessed the grounds for divorce based on allegations of cruelty and the impact of parental interference in marital discord.
Fact of the Case:
The husband filed for divorce citing cruelty after the couple lived apart for over a decade. The court granted divorce, with the wife appealing this decision while also seeking custody of their child and recovery of financial claims and gold ornaments.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the husband's claims of cruelty, concluding that efforts for reconciliation had failed. It ruled the divorce was warranted and allowed visitation rights for the father while denying the wife's appeal for both the divorce and custody arrangements.
Issues: Whether the grounds for divorce based on cruelty were justifiable and if the claims for custody and financial recovery by the wife were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that repeated uncontrolled allegations against the husband caused mental cruelty, justifying the divorce. It also affirmed that the father was competent for custody, aiding the child's welfare.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the wife are dismissed and the appeal filed by the husband is allowed in part.
J U D G M E N T
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J The parties are same in these appeals. We shall refer the parties with reference to their marital status. The husband approached the Family Court for divorce under the Indian Divorce Act alleging cruelty on the part of the wife. The petition for divorce filed by the husband as O.P No.1812 of 2012 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur, was allowed by granting a decree of divorce. Challenging the above, the wife preferred Mat. Appeal No.1301 of 2015 before this Court. I.A No.5 of 2015 filed in O.P No.1812 of 2012 by the husband, for custody of the male child born in the wedlock was allowed in part granting him visitation rights during vacations. This is also separately challenged in Mat. Appeal No.233 of 2016 by the wife.
2. The wife also had approached the Family Court, Thrissur with two different petitions. In O.P No.770 of 2013, she claimed recovery of gold ornaments, money and past maintenance. After the filing of the Commission Report in the matter, who was deputed to take inventory of the gold ornaments kept in the joint locker, husband raised a counter claim to claim 19 sovereigns of gold ornaments reported in the Commission Report and also certain gold ornaments kept by the wife. The Family Court allowed the claim of the wife to the extent of recovery of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments as referred to in the Commission Report and the remaining gold ornaments kept in the joint locker were declared as the gold ornaments belonging to the husband. The Family Court also allowed the claim of Rs.12 Lakh by the wife from the husband. Aggrieved by the relief granted for recovery of money as well as declaration granted to the extent of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments, the husband filed Mat. Appeal No.5 of
2016 before this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the husband and the learned counsel for the wife.
4. We shall first advert to the appeal filed by the wife challenging divorce granted in favour of the husband. The parties married in accordance with the christian ceremonies and rites on 12.05.2007. In their wedlock, a male child was born and he was four years old at the time of filing the petition. Now he is 14 years old. It seen from the pleadings and evidence that the parties initially had a happy married life. However, due to involvements and interference of the parents on both sides, their relationship deteriorated. Constant discord and disputes appear to have been the reason for the husband leaving the wife and son, at their native place, Thrissur after residing together at Dubai. It appears that the parties were living separately since 2012. While analyzing the pleadings and evidence, we have reminded ourselves that all efforts for reunion have been failed and there is no scope for reconciliation between the parties. The Family Court took note of the E-mail communications, police complaint etc which the wife sent to the employer of the husband and formed an opinion that wife has caused mental cruelty to the husband. We perused the E-mail communications and the complaints and found that the wife has raised certain allegations, which would affect the reputation and even the employment of the husband in the Gulf country. We also noted the letter written by the parents of the wife apologizing for the misdeeds. This letter was in the year 2011. We would have considered the conduct of the wife and her parents as part of normal wear and tear of the matrimonial life. However, after sending the letter apologizing, in the year 2011, the wife again sent a letter on 16.12.2013, which was marked as Ext.B1, to the employer of the husband, Consulate of India and police, raising allegations against the husband. This complaint cannot be taken in isolation. When a serious complaint is raised against the husband before the employer and other authorities, the author of such complaint ought to have perceived the consequences that likely to be followed. As these allegations were of no substance, the
