Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 42053
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
J. Nisha Banu, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
Arun Sivaraj N. Saged – Appellant
Versus
Anusree Sivan – Respondent
MAT.APPEAL NO. 396 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mathew Kuriakos, J. Krishnakumar (Adoor), Moni George
For the Respondents: R. Rekha
Filing false criminal complaints against a spouse and their parents with the intent to settle disputes constitutes mental cruelty, entitling the aggrieved spouse to a decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Headnote:The appellant sought dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging physical and mental cruelty by the respondent towards him and his relatives. The Family Court originally granted a decree of judicial separation under Section 13(A) instead of dissolution of marriage, despite the respondent admitting to initiating criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code to settle disputes amicably. The court addressed whether the filing of false criminal complaints against a spouse and their parents to force a settlement constitutes mental cruelty. The court reasoned that any conduct hindering a spouse's ability to enjoy marital life falls within the ambit of cruelty, and specifically, the act of initiating false criminal proceedings constitutes mental cruelty that entitles the aggrieved party to a decree for divorce. Accordingly, this appeal allowed. The order dated 21.06.2021 in O.P. No.402/2018 of the Family Court, Kalpetta, is set aside. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage, 1955 with effect from today (29.06.2026).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the matrimonial dispute and the original grant of judicial separation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's attempts at mediation and settlement between the parties. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. establishing that false criminal complaints and conduct hindering marital bliss constitute mental cruelty. (Para 8 , 9) |
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2026, THE COURT ON 07.07.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
J.NISHA BANU,J.
This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 21.06.2021 in O.P. No.402 of 2018 of the Family Court, Kalpetta. The appellant and the respondent herein are the petitioner and the respondent in the aforesaid original petition.
2. The appellant/petitioner filed O.P No.402/2018 before the Family Court, Kalpetta against the respondent for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act., 1955.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 25.04.2010 as per the Hindu rites and customs prevailing in the Hindu community and registered with the local authority on 11.05.2010. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, the behavior and attitude of the respondent towards the appellant, his parents and relatives changed. Many instances of cruelty both physical and mental on the part of the respondent towards the appellant, his parents and relatives, are mentioned in detail in the original petition. From 23.10.2018 onwards, the respondent has been residing separately from the appellant.
4. The respondent contested the O.P. and filed another O.P.No.259 of 2019 before the Family Court, Kalpetta for restitution of conjugal rights. According to the respondent, there were no instances of cruelty from her side and she was subjected to cruelty by the appellant, his parents and relatives. During the pendency of the O.P., she initiated proceedings against the appellant and his in-laws under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Family Court tried the original petitions jointly and dismissed O.P. No. 259 of 2019 for restitution of conjugal rights. A decree of judicial separation under Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been granted in O.P. No.402/2018.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.06.2021 in O.P. No.402/2018 on the file of the Family Court, Kalpetta, denying dissolution of marriage, the appellant preferred this appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no representation for the respondent.
7. When the case was taken up for consideration on 15.01.2026, both sides offered to appear for attempting settlement on 23.01.2026. On 23.01.2026, both sides were present and they were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre, High Court of Kerala, for mediation. Pursuant to the mediation proceedings on 23.01.2026 and 06.02.2026, the mediator filed a report dated 06.02.2026 stating that the matter was not settled. When the case was posted on 1.06.2026, the respondent sought time and the case was posted to 29.06.2026.
8. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that respondent/wife had deposed that the criminal proceedings had been initiated by her against the appellant, his parents and relatives, only for settling the disputes amicably with the appellant. Filing of false criminal complaints against her husband, parents and relatives with the sole intention of settling the dispute with the appellant, will itself amount to cruelty. The Family Court failed to consider the mental cruelty exerted by the respondent towards the appellant, his parents and relatives. The court is expected to adopt standards of a prudent person while appreciating evidence about matrimonial cruelty; that the matrimonial cruelty need not be proved by ocular corroboration from independent sources.
9. The appellant and the respondent have been residing separately since 2018. Any conduct that would hinder the ability of the spouse to blossom into his/her fu
