Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13404
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
ANAND P.V. – Appellant
Versus
RESHMI. T.V. – Respondent
Mat.Appeal 175/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.), SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH, SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE
For the Respondents: SRI.T.MADHU, SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
False allegations by one spouse can constitute mental cruelty, justifying divorce, especially in cases of long separation.
Headnote:(A) Family Law - Dissolution of Marriage - Allegations of mental cruelty not proved by the husband; Family Court dismissed the petition - Court finds that false allegations lodged by the wife constitute mental cruelty; Long separation without intent to reconcile amounts to cruelty. (Paras 6, 7, 8)
(B) Legal Principles - Definition of cruelty is subjective; Varying perceptions make it difficult to establish a universal definition. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The husband sought divorce alleging mental cruelty due to the wife's refusal to cohabit and false police complaints. The Family Court dismissed the petition, finding insufficient proof of cruelty.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the husband's allegations of mental cruelty were substantiated by the wife's false complaints, and long separation indicated irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Issues: Whether the husband's allegations of mental cruelty were proven; whether long separation constitutes cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that false allegations amount to mental cruelty, and long separation without attempts at reconciliation constitutes a breakdown of marriage.
Result: Appeal allowed, marriage dissolved.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.12.2015 IN OP NO.333 OF 2014 OF FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD -----
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ANAND P.V., AGED 36 YEARS S/O. G.K.VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT MANIKOTH HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL IN KANNUR DISTRICT, P.O.CHIRAKKAL.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
RESHMI. T.V., AGED 31 YEARS D/O. T.V.NARAYANA MARAR, "SREE VINAYAKA", NEAR A.C.KANNAN NAIR PARK, PUTHIYAKOTTA, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315, HOSDURG TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 29.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat. Appeal No.175 of 2016 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of May, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition filed by the husband against the wife, seeking dissolution of marriage alleging cruelty, was dismissed by the Family Court. The husband is in appeal.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 06.09.2004. The parties are living separately since the year 2013. The husband alleged mental cruelty by the respondent-wife. She refused residence at the matrimonial home along with his family members. She always complained about his social status and used to insult him in public. False complaints were lodged against him before the police, alleging harassment for dowry. Accordingly he sought for dissolution of marriage.
3. The respondent-wife denied the allegations levelled. It was alleged that the husband and his family members were ill-treating and harassing her.
4. The Family Court held that the husband failed to prove the allegations of mental cruelty. Accordingly the original petition was dismissed.
5. We have heard Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant-husband and Sri.T.Madhu, the learned counsel for the respondent-
wife.
6. The Family Court found that the allegations of mental cruelty levelled by the husband are not proved. It is to be noticed that, admittedly the wife had filed complaints against the husband under Section 498A IPC and under the Domestic Violence Act. While she was examined as RW1, she deposed that the allegations made in such complaints were false. The relevant deposition reads thus :-
“
നനിര്ᩌരമമായനി പപീഡനിപനിᨴ എനᩐ മമൽപറഞ .
മകേസുകേളനിൽ പറഞതു ശരനിയല അനതᩈ᪓ സമാഹചരരര തകേമാണᩐ ശരനിയലമാᩈ᪓ കേമാരണ്ᨲൾ കേമാണനിᨴ പരമാതനി
.”
തകേമാടുത Upon such complaint being lodged by the wife the husband had to suffer severe mental agony. Crime No.906/2013 was registered against him at the Husdurg Police Station. The husband had to suffer mental trauma consequent on the filing of such complaints which, the wife admitted to have been false allegations. The said conduct by itself amounts to inflicting of mental cruelty on the spouse. In Litty Mary John v. Manoj K. Varghese ( 2024 (5) KLT 231 ), the court held that, “11. A single, overarching definition of "cruelty" is impractical and ineffective, as it can manifest in various forms and shapes - it may be perceived differently in different situations. What constitutes cruelty often differs from person to person, situation to situation, as it is subjective and depends on the perception of the individual experiencing it.
12. The concept of cruelty indubitably is inherently subjective - it being inevitable - since what one person considers cruel, may not be perceived the same way by another. This subjectivity arises from individual differences in values, experiences, and sensitivity. For instance, an action that causes emotional distress to one person, might be perceived as trivial or inconsequential by someone else. These varying perceptions make it difficult to establish a universal definition of "cruelty"
