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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 76095

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Muhamed Mustaque, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
S.R.SURESH BABU – Appellant
Versus
BEENA – Respondent
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1180 OF 2015 | MAT.APPEAL NO. 984 OF 2017 | MAT.APPEAL NO. 623 OF 2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sumathy Dandapani (SR.), S.V.Balakrishna Iyer (SR.), Rajesh P.Nair
For the Respondents: R.Bindu, Harish Gopinath, R.S.Kalkura, M.S.Kalesh, P.M.Unni Namboodiri

Unilateral cancellation of a gift deed is invalid without the donee's acceptance; the court upholds that claims of divorce and financial restitution require solid evidential support which was lacking.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(ib) - Matrimonial appeal for divorce on grounds of desertion denied due to lack of evidence of intention to return to cohabitation by husband and unreasonable behaviour conditions - Asserted claims regarding property and money misappropriation observed as unsupported, leading to dismissal of appeals. (Para 16)

(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 58 and 59 - Distinction in limitation starts from awareness of adverse actions affecting rights, impacting timing of suit filing. (Paras 12(i) to 12(iii))

Facts of the case:
Parties married on 10/7/1985, litigations ensued from claims of divorce, property disputes, and allegations of misappropriation since 2001, with consequential appeals filed in 2015 and 2017.

Findings of Court:
Family Court's rejection of divorce cited lack of evidence of desertion or ill treatment, highlighting husband's conduct as contributing to the couple's separation - marriage not deemed irretrievably broken.

Issues: The court considered validity of claims regarding desertion and the unilateral cancellation of a gift deed, alongside the legitimacy of subsequent financial claims put forth by the wife.

Ratio Decidendi: The husband's failure to provide clear evidence of desertion or demonstrate necessary change in circumstances contributed to the dismissal of divorce claims; unilateral action against the wife's property rights was found legally invalid.

Result: All appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. desertion requires proof beyond separation, addressing spousal conduct. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. unilateral cancellations are unsustainable without consent. (Para 7 , 8)
3. limitations on claims relate directly to knowledge of rights being compromised. (Para 12 , 13)
4. financial claims need evidentiary support to prevail in court. (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th day of February, 2022 A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

These matrimonial appeals are between same parties. The parties are referred to as per their marital status.

2. Mat.Appeal No.623/2016: This appeal is at the instance of the husband, who challenges dismissal of a petition for divorce. The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . This ground relates to divorce on the plea of desertion. The parties married according to the Hindu customs and ceremonies on 10/7/1985. One female child was born in the wedlock, who is now married and settled. The husband had filed a petition for divorce as O.P.( HMA )No.387/2001 on the ground of cruelty. He was unsuccessful before the Family Court as well as in the appeal before this Court.

The appeal was disposed of by this Court on 25/6/2009. The present petition for divorce was filed on 25/10/2011 alleging that from 20/4/2001, there has been no marital relationship and the wife deserted the husband without any intention to resume cohabitation. The wife countered the allegation of desertion contending that she was forced to shift her residence for congenial upbringing of the daughter and also on account of cruel attitude of the husband. The Family Court, noting the observations by this Court in the judgment related to divorce sought by the husband on the ground of cruelty, found that the husband failed to make out a case of desertion.

3. The marriage was solemnised on 10/7/1985.

The parties were in Dubai for 10 years and, thereafter, they returned to Thiruvananthapuram and settled there. The husband filed the divorce case on the ground of cruelty in the year 2001. That ended in dismissal. The present case of divorce on the ground of desertion was filed on 25/10/2011. Section 13 (1)(ib) states, 'desertion' as follows:

(b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition;

In the explanation to Section 13 it is stated as follows:

Explanation. In this sub-section, the expression ”desertion” means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.

4. No doubt, in this case the parties are living separately for more than two years as on the date of presentation of the case. The wife has also no intention to resume cohabitation. Desertion as a ground for divorce is recognized under law on the basis of the fault of a spouse to the marriage. Under Hindu law, as revealed from the above explanation, if a spouse has a reasonable cause to live separately, such a separate stay or refusal to cohabitation cannot be construed as desertion. Perhaps in this context the relevant observation of this Court in an earlier Mat.Appeal No.16/2005 filed by the husband is worth mentioning, particularly, at paras.13 and14 which read as follows:

13. ..On the other hand, there is sufficient evidence to show that the appellant used to ill-treat the respondent due to some mental disorder which can be corrected by taking medicines.. The fact that the marriage has broken down is no reason in itself for a finding of cruelty. In the present case, there are allegations and counter allegations against each other as is evident from the petition and the counter statement which are indications of strain in the relationship between the parties and the same cannot be

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top