Back
When 'No Reason' Isn't Enough to Block Divorce: Kerala HC Clears the Air
In a significant ruling for couples seeking a clean break, the has held that family courts cannot deny under , simply because spouses admit to living separately "without any reason." A Division Bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen allowed the wife's appeal, dissolving her 2023 marriage to her husband after the , had dismissed their joint petition.
From Church Vows to Courtroom Standoff
Dyna Scaria @ Thresiamma, a 28-year-old psychologist, and Vernin Varkey @ John, a 31-year-old team leader, tied the knot on , at St. Mary's Forane Church, Edoor, following Roman Catholic rites. Their union was registered on , but cracks appeared soon after. By , the wife had left the amid . failed, leading the couple to file a (OP No. 1247/2024) for before the , on .
After the mandatory six-month , counseling attempts fizzled out. Both submitted affidavits and testified as PW1 (husband) and PW2 (wife). Yet, the family court dismissed the petition on , citing the husband's statement that they lived separately "for no reason" and interpreting his silence on a reunion question as withdrawn consent. The wife appealed (Mat. Appeal No. 826 of 2025), with the husband choosing not to appear.
Wife's Plea: Focus on Consent, Not Causes
The appellant's counsel highlighted the certified copies of the petition, affidavits, and depositions, stressing the husband's clear affirmation: "Need divorce." They argued the family court ignored this, fixating on the "no reason" remark and an unanswered question about cohabitation. Citing the Madras High Court's ruling in In Re: A.C. Mathivanan & Another (2016 KHC 4077), counsel urged that courts should not probe reasons for separation in cases but verify marriage validity, consent, and averments.
The respondent, absent from the appeal, had earlier testified consistently with wanting separation, though phrasing it awkwardly in Malayalam.
Consent Trumps Curiosity: The High Court's Logic
The Bench meticulously reviewed the record, noting the joint petition post-cooling period and both parties' exams. The husband's deposition translated key admissions:
"We have been residing separately since 08/06/2024. We are residing separately without any reason... Need divorce."
His non-answer to
"Do you wish to live together with your wife?"
did not negate consent.
Under Section 10A, the court clarified, family courts must inquire into marriage solemnization, petition truthfulness, and consent—not delve into separation motives. Drawing from the Madras precedent, which bars questioning non-cohabitation reasons in petitions, the Bench found no consent withdrawal. The family court's contrary inference was "unwarranted."
Key Observations from the Bench
-
On the husband's testimony
:
"PW1 had deposed before the trial court that they are living separately for no reason... [but] during examination he had categorically stated that he wants divorce."
-
Duty under Section 10A
:
"The Family Court is required to make such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnised and that the averments in the petition are true and to pass a decree declaring the marriage to be dissolved."
-
Clear mutual intent
:
"Both the wife and the husband... had clearly stated before the Family Court that both of them want divorce. Therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to conclude that there was no ."
-
No withdrawal evident
:
"In the present case, there is no withdrawal of any consent as seen from the depositions of PWs.1 and 2."
Divorce Granted: A Precedent for Deadlock Marriages?
The appeal succeeded on :
"The Mat. Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree... are set aside. The marriage between the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband solemnized on 13.05.2023 is dissolved from the date of this judgment."
This decision reinforces that genuine suffices for Christian couples under the Divorce Act, shielding deadlocked unions from judicial meddling over separation "reasons." As legal observers note, it aligns with evolving views on irretrievable breakdowns, potentially easing paths for others facing similar family court scrutiny.
