Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 42054
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
J. Nisha Banu, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
Sindhu – Appellant
Versus
Sunilkumar – Respondent
MAT.APPEAL NO. 515 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.R. Arun Krishnan
A marriage that has irretrievably broken down, characterized by long-term separation with no cohabitation or desire for reconciliation, constitutes cruelty to both parties, justifying the dissolution of marriage.
Headnote:The appellant sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, alleging physical assault and misrepresentation regarding the respondent's employment. The Family Court dismissed the original petition, finding that the appellant failed to prove cruelty and had left the matrimonial home without justification. The court examined whether the marriage had broken down irretrievably given that the parties had lived separately for over ten years and the husband's whereabouts remained unknown. The court reasoned that keeping parties together in circumstances of irretrievable breakdown is itself a form of cruelty to both sides, citing established precedents of the apex court and the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the Family Court are set aside. Consequently, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the matrimonial dispute and the lower court's dismissal based on failure to prove cruelty. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. analysis of the current status of the parties' separation and lack of evidence for specific cruelty allegations. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. application of the principle that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is itself a ground for divorce as it amounts to cruelty. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.
The appellant/wife has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2018 in O.P. No.1963 of 2015, whereby the original petition filed by her seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty was dismissed by the Family Court, Thrissur. The respondent herein is the husband.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.09.2006, and a girl child was born out of the wedlock. At the time of the marriage, the respondent/husband was residing in Chennai along with his parents. It was represented to the appellant/wife that the respondent was employed in Singapore and that, after the marriage, he would take her with him to Singapore. After the marriage, the appellant/wife came to know that the respondent/husband was not employed in Singapore as represented before the marriage and, in fact, was unemployed at the relevant time.
3. According to the appellant/wife, while she was residing with the respondent/husband at Chennai and subsequently at Ottappalam, the respondent/husband used to ill-treat and physically assault her under the influence of alcohol. The appellant/wife further alleged that the parents of the respondent/husband also subjected her to cruelty. According to her, it became impossible for her to continue residing in the matrimonial home and she was constrained to leave and return to her parental home. Thereafter, she filed the petition seeking dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce.
4. On the other hand, the respondent/husband contended that he had never subjected the appellant/wife to cruelty and that she had left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason. He further expressed his willingness and readiness to reside with the appellant and their child.
5. The Family Court after elaborate consideration found that the wife left the company of the husband without any reason. The Family Court further held that the appellant/wife had failed to prove that the respondent/husband had subjected her to cruelty, thereby justifying her separate residence. Consequently, it was held that she was not entitled to a decree of divorce, and the Original Petition was dismissed.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Though notice was initially sought to be served on the respondent through Special Messenger, it was reported that the respondent had not been residing at the address shown in the petition and that his whereabouts had been unknown for several years. Thereafter, notice was served through paper publication and there was no appearance for the respondent.
7. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.09.2006. From the pleadings and the materials on record, it is evident that the appellant and the respondent have been living separately since 2015. Except for the allegations made by the appellant/wife that the respondent/husband had subjected her to cruelty, no cogent evidence was adduced by her to substantiate the said allegations. Though the respondent/husband had initially expressed his willingness to reside with the appellant/wife, he did not file any petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, it is clear that, as stated by the respondent/husband did not have an ardent desire to live with the appellant/wife. Though the wife alleged cruelty inflicted on her by the husband, no clear evidence has been adduced to prove the same. Cruelty can be either physical, emotional, psychological or verbal. Different people experience cruelty in different forms.
