Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 43415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
BALAKRISHNAN O M – Appellant
Versus
LATHA V – Respondent
MAT.APPEAL NO. 751 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nobel Raju, C.R.Jayakumar, P.K.Vinaya
For the Respondents: Joseph M.P.
Prolonged separation between spouses, coupled with admitted instances of conflict such as filing police complaints, can constitute mental cruelty sufficient for the dissolution of marriage, and the non-examination of children is not necessarily fatal to such a plea.
Headnote:The appellant-husband sought dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty. The Family Court had previously dismissed the petition, holding that the evidence was insufficient and noting that the children of the parties were not examined to prove the alleged cruelty. The husband appealed this decision, citing mental cruelty and prolonged separation. The court addressed whether the non-examination of children is fatal to a plea of cruelty and how prolonged separation is viewed legally. The court reasoned that mental cruelty is a relative concept varying from person to person and that the admitted fact of multiple police complaints filed by the wife, coupled with a separation of ten years, constitutes sufficient grounds for divorce. The court noted that prolonged separation by itself can amount to cruelty. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Family Court is set aside. The marriage between the parties will stand dissolved by a decree of divorce.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of matrimonial dispute and family court's initial dismissal based on insufficient evidence of cruelty. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. mental cruelty is a relative concept inferred from specific facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. non-examination of children is not fatal if other admitted facts prove cruelty. (Para 8) |
| 4. prolonged separation between spouses constitutes a ground for divorce as it amounts to cruelty. (Para 9 , 10) |
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Sathish Ninan & P.Krishna Kumar, JJ.
Mat.Appeal No.751 of 2022
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2026
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition filed by the petitioner-husband against the respondent-wife, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, was dismissed by the Family Court. The husband is in appeal
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 09.02.1992. The original petition was filed seeking divorce alleging cruelty at the hands of the wife. Two sons were born in the wedlock. Alleging that he had been subjected to mental cruelty by the wife, the husband instituted the original petition seeking dissolution of the marriage.
3. The allegations of cruelty were denied by the respondent. She contended that it was the husband who had treated her with cruelty.
4. The Family Court held that the evidence on record was insufficient to hold that the respondent-wife had subjected the petitioner to cruelty. Consequently, the original petition was dismissed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side
6. In Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta [2002 (5) SCC 706], the Apex Court held that mental cruelty is a matter for inference from the facts and circumstances of each case. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat [1994(1) SCC 337] the Apex Court held that the facet of cruelty varies from case to case, and that what is cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another. In Litty Mary John v. Manoj K. Varghese (2024 SCC OnLine Ker. 4215), this Court held that Mental cruelty is a relative concept and it varies from person to person.
7. Bearing the above in mind, we proceed to consider the materials in this case. According to the petitioner, ever since the marriage, the respondent used to quarrel with him. The Family Court found that the evidence on record reveals that right from the inception, there were quarrels between the spouses. He alleged that the respondent had lodged false allegations against him before various authorities, including the police. The respondent-wife admitted that, on two occasions, she had lodged police complaints against her husband. The parties have been living separately since 2016.
8. The Family Court held that the children born in the wedlock ought to have been examined to prove the alleged acts of cruelty, and that in the absence thereof, the allegations of cruelty remained unproved. We are unable to accept the said reasoning. Though the evidence of the children would have been relevant, their non-examination cannot be held to be fatal. The fact that complaints were made by her against the husband before the police more than once is an admitted fact. The respondent-wife had not instituted any proceeding seeking restitution of conjugal rights. However, no further steps have been taken by her to pursue the said proceedings. The parties have been living separately for the past 10 years. Coupled with this, is her own case that she was subjected to mental cruelty at the hands of the petitioner-husband.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions held that the prolonged separation by itself amounts to cruelty on the spouse [See: Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006 (4) SCC 558), Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007 (4) SCC 511), K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A Deepра . (2013 (5) SCC 226), N.P. Leelamma v. M.A. Moni (2017 (3) KLJ 311), R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha
