SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3204

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, C.S. Sudha, JJ
SOWMYA LATHA – Appellant
Versus
GANESH PRASAD – Respondent
Mat.Appeal 570/2023



Advocates:
HEMALATHA, BINU GEORGE, AMANTA MATHEW, ARUNKUMAR ATHIS

Cruelty and desertion can be established through evidence substantiating the mental state and behavior of a spouse, impacting the marital relationship.

Headnote:

Divorce - Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) - The court interpreted cruelty and desertion in the context of mental illness and behavior within marriage, determining that sufficient evidence of cruelty and desertion justified the dissolution of marriage.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal was against a decree of divorce granted to the husband on grounds of desertion and cruelty. The couple married in 2017, but the wife exhibited erratic behavior and mental health issues that affected their relationship. The husband claimed cruelty and desertion from February 2019 onward.

Issues: Whether the husband is entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage due to cruelty and desertion.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence of the wife's mental health issues and lack of return to marital home after leaving constituted sufficient grounds for divorce under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the grant of divorce.

J U D G M E N T

Amit Rawal, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated

07/06/2023 rendered in O.P.No.495/2021 on the file of the Family Court, Kasaragod, granting divorce to the husband on the ground of desertion and cruelty.

2. The facts in brief in the present appeal are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was performed on 15/02/2017 as per the Hindu customary rites. Wife is stated to have lived with the husband in matrimonial home till 19/02/2019. As per the allegation made in the petition filed by the husband, respondent from the day one started to behave very strangely and never wanted to live with him. However, on 03/06/2018 a male child was born but her behaviour after the birth of the child again was so cruel that she indulged into complaining about the fitness of the husband and threatened of committing suicide. When her condition became worse, she was questioned about her action but replied that she wanted a divorce. An attempt was made to show her to a doctor but after consuming the medicine for some time, she stopped taking the medicines. Registered notices dated 19/07/2019 and 16/08/2019 were also sent by the husband.

3. On the basis of the mental illness and the cruel behaviour, husband sought divorce. Appellant/wife on appearance, objected to the claim of the husband by admitting the marriage stated that husband was an automobile expert and working as a Manager at Mahindra and Mahindra showroom, Kanhangad and earning ₹75,000/- per month as salary, besides that he was having agricultural income. The husband and his family members prohibited her to deal with all kitchen utilities like electrical grinder, mixi, gas stow, cooker, refrigerator. She was forced to cook and do other house hold jobs. Husband did not permit the wife to switch on the lights and fans even during the night including the summer season. After four months of the marriage, had taken the medicines for thyroid variation as suggested by the Medical Officer. Thus it is not the case that she never co-operated with the husband or extended any act of cruelty. Though was taken to a Psychiatrist at Mangalore and prescribed to take medicines, but was doubtful about the prescription therefore, did not take the medicine. The husband also indulged in taking her signature in some blank papers as well as stamp papers.

4. Wife also made an allegation of her life in the matrimonial home to be not only miserable but worse owing to the narration of the events in the counter. Since the parties were at variance, the Family court framed the following points for determination -

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree for dissolution of marriage as prayed for in the petition?

2. Relief and costs?

5. In support of the claim for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion husband examined himself as PW1, Dr.Anil Kakunje as PW2 and Gopalakrishna Bhat as PW3. Wife did not examine any witness. In support of the aforementioned allegation, husband also brought on record the following documents- the following documents-

On examination of the evidence the learned Family Court granted divorce.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the wife in support of the memorandum of appeal submitted that the court below erroneously found that the husband was entitled to the order of dissolution of marriage as the evidence brought on record did not reveal any act of cruelty or desertion. In fact the wife had not left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause but it was on account of the cruelty extended to her. Therefore, there was no element of desertion. Testimony of PW2 Dr.Anil Kakunje was also not read in correct perspective. His testimony could not have been read as a sermon for granting the divorce on the ground of cruelty as there is a passing reference of wife having sometimes remain dull and on depression. The court below did not notice that the ladies do suffer from a hormonal changes and there are always mood swin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top