The court established that prolonged separation and lack of cohabitation constitute grounds for divorce due to irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J

The appellant, the husband of the respondent, filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Kannur. By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the Family Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant had failed to establish matrimonial cruelty or desertion on the part of the respondent.

2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 11.02.2014 according to Hindu religious rites. At the time of marriage, the appellant was 41 years old and employed abroad, while the respondent was 31 years old. Shortly after the wedding, the appellant returned to his workplace overseas. Before departing, he requested the respondent to reside at his parental home until he could arrange a family visa for her. Nevertheless, it is alleged that the respondent left the matrimonial home merely 12 days later without informing the appellant, despite the fact that the appellant used to contact her two or three times a day through phone calls. Subsequently, the respondent’s family members allegedly began insisting that the appellant should reside separately from his parents. When the appellant expressed his concern over their attitude, to his surprise, the respondent supported their demand. Moreover, it is alleged that the respondent frequently referred to the appellant as "a man with no backbone," which caused him considerable emotional distress. When the appellant voiced his disapproval of such remarks, the respondent’s father repeated the same phrase to the appellant’s mother.

3. Later, the appellant learned from a third party that the respondent had undergone a medical check-up and discovered that she was pregnant. Upon attempting to contact her for clarification, she avoided his calls. However, due to the appellant’s persistent efforts, the respondent eventually returned to the matrimonial home. At one point, the appellant’s mother allegedly noticed discrepancies and corrections in the respondent’s horoscope, suggesting a deliberate concealment of certain facts. When confronted, the respondent got offended and on 28.06.2014, she left the matrimonial home once again, without the appellant's knowledge or consent, and has not returned since. On 13.11.2014, the respondent gave birth to a child, but the appellant claims he was not informed of the birth. Despite making several attempts, the appellant contends that the respondent refused to resume cohabitation. He asserts that the respondent’s conduct amounts to matrimonial cruelty and desertion, thereby entitling him to a decree of divorce.

4. The respondent denied all the allegations made by the appellant and contended that after the appellant left for abroad—19 days after their marriage—his relatives began to treat her with cruelty. When it became known that the respondent had conceived in the early days of marriage, the appellant’s relatives expressed doubts about her chastity.

They subjected her to a medical test to determine the age of the foetus. Due to some confusion arising from the scan report—though there was no actual discrepancy—the appellant’s relatives harassed and mentally tortured the respondent, alleging that she was carrying a child not fathered by the appellant.

5. In September 2014, while on leave, the appellant returned to India and filed a petition seeking annulment of the marriage, alleging that the respondent had become pregnant through an illicit relationship with another man. In fact, the respondent gave birth to a child within 269 days of marriage, which led the appellant to harbor suspic