Irretrievable breakdown after 14 years separation justifies divorce despite insufficient cruelty evidence.

The wife has come up in appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.07.2014 of the Family Court, Pala, whereby the original petition, OP No.40 of 2014, filed by the wife for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty was dismissed. The respondent herein is the husband.

2. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, “husband” and “wife”.

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10.06.2012 in accordance with the customary rites and rituals at Mankuzhy Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Poonjar. There are no issues in the wedlock. The wife alleges that the husband began ill-treating her within one month of their marriage, that he was a habitual drunkard, and that he misappropriated the gold ornaments given to her at the time of marriage. The husband was also suspicious of the wife, and due to his conduct, she was unable to lead a peaceful life with him. Hence, she was living separately from him with her parents. The respondent refused to file a joint petition and hence, the original petition is filed for divorce. Though repeated notices were served on the respondent/husband by the Family Court, he chose not to appear before the court. The Family Court held that the cruelty alleged by the petitioner in the O.P. did not constitute a ground for granting divorce, as the allegations did not amount to cruelty. Accordingly, the Family Court dismissed the said original petition.

4. Though notice was served on the respondent/ husband in the appeal, he had signed the notice, but no vakalath is seen filed and he had not chosen to appear before this court.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. The main ground urged for divorce is cruelty. According to the wife, the husband was a habitual drunkard who ill-treated her and compelled her to bring her share from her parental home, thereby subjecting her to continuous mental harassment. The marriage took place in 2012, and the original petition was filed on 03.02.2014. Even as on date, when the matter is taken up, there is no settlement between the parties, and both the appellant and the respondent are living separately. From the averments in the petition as well as the appeal, it is evident that the matrimonial bond has irretrievably broken down and that the marital relationship has ceased to exist. Although there is no direct evidence regarding the absence of cohabitation, it is apparent that the parties have been living separately for nearly 14 years, from 2012 to 2026. We are of the view that it is appropriate for the parties to part ways and move on with their respective lives.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment in Manisha Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar [ 2010 KHC 4095 ], wherein the Apex Court held that the conduct is no longer required to be so atrociously abominable which would cause a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to continue the cohabitation with the other spouse.

8. InShilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [2023 SCC OnLine SC 544], it has been held that where there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage, then, dissolution of marriage is the only solution. In a recent decision of the apex court inRajib Kumar vs. Sushmita Saha [ 2023 KHC 7090 ], it has been held that keeping the parties together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides. Though the afore two judgments are rendered under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, considering the facts in this case, we are of the opinion that since the parties are living separately for many years, there is no meaning in keeping this case pending and not grant