Refusal To Acknowledge Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage Does More Harm Than Good: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court while dissolving a marriage on the ground of ‘cruelty’, remarked that the refusal to acknowledge irretrievable breakdown of marriage does more harm than good.
The Court was deciding a matrimonial appeal filed by the wife, challenging the judgment of the Family Court by which it dismissed her petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P.M. Manoj said, “Marriage should be a union based on mutual respect, love, and understanding. When one spouse seeks freedom from a relationship that has become a source of distress, denying this request only perpetuates suffering and contradicts the very essence of a marital bond. The refusal to acknowledge the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage does more harm than good, inflicting emotional pain and preventing both parties from moving forward with their lives.”
Advocate Mathew Kuriakose appeared for the appellant/wife while Advocate Arun Thomas appeared for the respondent/husband.
In this case, the marriage between the parties was solemnized in 1997 and two children were born in the wedlock. The appellant/wife contended that the respondent/husband was a spendthrift and never looked after her and her kids. It was contended that serious differences of opinion occurred between the two after the wife had acquired B.Tech Degree and secured a job. The husband had only basic qualifications and his job status was inferior to that of his wife which led to the husband acquiring an inferiority complex.
The husband allegedly started physically and mentally abusing his wife saying that she was having ‘chovva dosham’, meaning thereby that she had a problem with astrological signs and by marrying her, he had acquired bad luck. When it became difficult for the wife to sustain the relationship, she approached the Family Court seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. As her petition was dismissed, she was before the High Court.
The High Court in the above context of the case observed, “In the case at hand, both parties are unable to lead a meaningful matrimonial life due to inherent differences of opinion. One party is seeking separation, while the other is not ready for it. This situation creates mental agony and cruelty for the spouse who is denied separation.”
The Court added that forcing the continuation of the marriage under such circumstances undermines the purpose of marriage, which is to uphold matrimonial ties lifelong, respecting the mutual obligation of rights.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Family Court, and dissolved the marriage between the parties.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:53560)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Mathew Kuriakose, Moni George, J. Krishnakumar (Adoor), C.N. Prakash, Shaji P.K., Arun S., and Preethu Jagathy.
Respondent: Advocate Arun Thomas
