Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 7165
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ
JYOTHI E.K – Appellant
Versus
RAMACHANDRAN P.K – Respondent
Mat.Appeal No. 20 of 2016 | OP No. 237 of 2006
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR, SMT.T.M.BINITHA
For the Respondents: SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN (SR.), SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL
Unfounded allegations can constitute mental cruelty, validating divorce.
Headnote:This judgment analyses the decree for divorce on grounds of mental cruelty. The court observed that the husband alleged unfounded accusations against the respondent without evidence. The Family Court's findings were upheld, affirming the decree of divorce due to the spouse's unfounded allegations constituting mental cruelty. The appeal was dismissed as the Family Court's decree was deemed lawful.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of cruelty. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's rationale on appeal. (Para 6) |
Sathish Ninan, J.
The decree for divorce granted at the instance of the husband, alleging mental cruelty, is under challenge in this appeal by the wife.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 08.02.1997. The allegation of the husband is that the wife is making false and unfounded allegation of he having an adulterous life.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the wife, she affirmed her allegations.
4. The Family Court granted divorce on the ground of cruelty.
5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.
Mat.Appeal No.20 of 2016
6. Though wild allegations that the petitioner is having illicit relationships were made, no attempt was made by the respondent to prove the same. The respondent even went to the extent of alleging that the petitioner is having illicit relationship with his own sister-in-law. No evidence is adduced by her to substantiate the allegations. Making such unfounded allegations by itself amounts to mental cruelty. It is sufficient enough to grant a decree of divorce. The Family Court was right in having granted a decree of divorce. There is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Family Court.
Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
