Irretrievable breakdown of marriage after 22 years separation justifies divorce despite Family Court dismissal.

This appeal is filed by the petitioner/wife challenging the judgement dated 30/10/2024 in O.P.No.687/2021, dismissal of a petition for divorce filed by the appellant/wife before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha. The respondent herein is the husband of the petitioner. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, “husband” and “wife”.

2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 21.05.2002 at Sub Registrar Office, Kothamangalam. A child was born in their wedlock on 24.03.2003. According to the appellant she was given 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹35,000/- as entrusted to the respondent. The husband treated her with cruelty by alleging that she was having illicit relationships with others. After the birth of the child, the husband did not show any love or affection towards them; instead, he harassed her and deserted her. Hence, she is not intending to continue with the marital relationship. Though O.P No.642 of 2016 was filed earlier seeking divorce, after settlement talk it was agreed to file a mutual petition for divorce and accordingly, the earlier O.P was dismissed. Though there was an agreement to file a mutual petition, the husband/respondent was not willing to sign and hence, the present O.P. was filed on the grounds of desertion and cruelty.

3. The case of the husband/respondent was that the parties had been leading a happy family life; he used to visit her when the wife was taken to her parental home for delivery and he continued to take care of them even after the birth of the son. However, thereafter, the parents of the wife/appellant started behaving indifferently, insulted the sister of the husband/respondent and did not permit the respondent to meet the wife/appellant at her parental house. Hence, the respondent did not visit the wife’s house. The respondent/husband has also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. However, the said case was not prosecuted by the respondent. The husband had also filed a petition seeking custody of the child. Though an ex parte order was passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, granting custody of the child to the husband, later in appeal a favourable order was received in favour of the wife.

4. The evidence in this case consisted of the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Ext.A1 on the side of the petitioner. RW1 was examined on the side of the respondent and Ext.B1 was marked. The Family Court, after considering the elaborate evidence, dismissed the original petition for divorce, finding that there was no desertion on the part of the husband.

5. When the case was taken up today for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant/wife submitted that, for the past 22 years, the parties have been living separately, and there has been no cohabitation between them. Though notice was served on the respondent, he chose not to appear before this court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was served on the respondent, he chose not to appear before this Court.

7. On a perusal of the evidence adduced in this case as well as the averments raised in the original petition, it is seen that, admittedly, from 2003 onwards, the parties have been living separately, and there is no case that, after the birth of the son, there was any cohabitation between the parties.

8. The evidence adduced in this case reveals that the matrimonial bond between the parties has come to an end and the husband-wife relationship has ceased to exist and they are living separately for the past 22 years. We feel that it is time for them to part ways and move on with their lives. In Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun