Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 42052
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
J. Nisha Banu, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
Rekha Valiya Parambath – Appellant
Versus
Purushothaman Alakkat – Respondent
Mat. Appeal No.353/2021 | OP No.460 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C. Muralikrishnan (Payyanur), P.I. Raheena, Abraham George Jacob
Where parties have lived separately for a long period with no cohabitation or efforts for restitution, it constitutes an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and continuing the legal marital status amounts to cruelty to both parties, justifying the dissolution of marriage.
Headnote:The appellant sought divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging physical torture, abandonment, and misconduct by the respondent. The Family Court had previously dismissed the petition on the grounds that cruelty was not proven. The court observed that the parties had been living separately for over ten years, with no cohabitation or efforts for restitution of conjugal rights, indicating a complete absence of a marital bond. The central issue was whether the marriage had broken down irretrievably given the long separation and lack of interest in reunion. The court reasoned that continued bitterness and dead emotions constitute an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and keeping parties together in such circumstances amounts to cruelty to both sides, citing that dissolution is the only viable solution in such cases. In the result, the appeal is allowed, dissolving the marriage between the appellant and respondent solemnized on 19.08.2000.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the marriage, allegations of cruelty, and history of separation between spouses. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. assessment of the current status of the marital bond and lack of interest in reunion. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. application of the doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.
1. The appellant herein is the petitioner/wife in OP No. 460 of 2018, who is aggrieved by the judgment of the Family Court, Kannur, whereby her petition seeking divorce was dismissed. She has, therefore, preferred the present appeal challenging the said judgment. She seeks divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent herein is the respondent/husband.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as “husband” and “wife”.
3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.08.2000 as per the Hindu religious rites and customs, and a girl child was born in the wedlock on 02.10.2001. They lived together as husband and wife initially for two years; and thereafter, the husband went to Saudi Arabia after obtaining employment as a truck driver. Even after the husband left for Saudi Arabia, the wife continued to reside in the matrimonial house along with husband’s parents and siblings. In 2009, the wife was forced to leave the matrimonial home; and thereafter, she occasionally visited the matrimonial home along with the child on the arrival of the husband from gulf. It is alleged that the husband is a drunkard and used to come home late at night under the influence of alcohol; and during that time, he used to torture her physically without any reason. It is also alleged that the husband had disclosed the wife's mobile phone number to strangers, pursuant to which she began receiving unknown calls, particularly during the night. He also used to share her photographs with such strangers, and that one of them subsequently uploaded the said photographs on social media platforms. The husband is also having relationships with several ladies; and he totally abandoned the wife in 2014. Thereafter, the husband neither visited the wife and the child nor sought interim custody of the child. Due to the cruelty and humiliation emitted out to the wife, she filed the petition for dissolution of marriage. The husband opposed the petition, denying the allegations that he is a drunkard and that he abandoned the wife and the child. According to him, it was the wife who was not interested in living with him. He also denied the allegation that he had shared his wife's mobile number and photographs with strangers. It was contended that while he was in the gulf, he made arrangements to take the wife to Saudi Arabia, subsequent to which she arrived in Saudi Arabia and got a job as a beautician. He also contended that she resided in the matrimonial home till 2016 and is leading a loose life without considering the sanctity of the marital relationship and is maintaining a close relationship with one Saresh Kumar. It was alleged that, although a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- had been given to the wife for the construction of a house, she had misappropriated the said amount. Hence, the husband prayed for a dismissal of the original petition. The Family Court, after an elaborate consideration of the issue, dismissed the original petition finding that the wife failed to prove cruelty on the part of the husband. Aggrieved by this, the wife is before us.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/wife. Though notice was served on the respondent/husband, he has not chosen to appear.
5. The marriage between the parties and the birth of a girl child in the wedlock are admitted. While the wife alleged that they had been living separately since 2014, the husband contended that they had been living separately only since 2016. From the averments in the original petition and the evidence adduced, it appears that the marital bond between the parties
