One Party Cannot Unilaterally Decide To Walk Out Of Marriage: Kerala HC Rejects Husband’s Plea For Divorce
The Kerala High Court held that a unilateral decision to dissolve a marriage, citing non-cohabitation without legal grounds justifying divorce, is not valid. In the case at hand, the husband, the appellant, filed two appeals against the Family Court's decisions. He challenged the decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by his wife and contested the rejection of his prayer for divorce. The crux of the matter revolved around allegations of cruelty and the breakdown of the marital relationship.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Sophy Thomas held, “So legally, one party cannot unilaterally decide to walk out of a marriage, when sufficient grounds are not there justifying a divorce, under the law which governs them, saying that due to non-co-habitation for a considerable long period, their marriage is dead practically and emotionally. No one can be permitted to take an incentive out of his own faulty actions or inactions”
The appellant-accused the respondent of ill-treatment, insults, and filing false complaints against him, leading him to file for divorce. The respondent, in response, filed for restitution of conjugal rights, denying the allegations and stating that the appellant had behavioral problems and shamed her body size and complexion.
Advocate Santhosh P. Poduval appeared for the Appellant and Advocate V.M. Krishnakumar appeared for the Respondent.
The issue before the Court was whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned judgments warranting interference.
The Court noted that the appellant had cited several instances of alleged cruelty, including an email sent by the respondent to his employer, seeking intervention to patch up their relationship. However, the Court interpreted the email as a desperate plea from a wife trying to reconcile, not an act of cruelty. The Court said, “The respondent wanted to patch up the relationship, and bring him back to normal life, and she was ready to be with him in his ups and downs. So, Ext.B12 e-mail cannot be taken as a cruel act from the part of the respondent, so as to dissolve their marriage.”
The Court further added, “Another ground of cruelty urged by the appellant is that, the respondent did not know cooking and so, she did not prepare food for him. That also cannot be termed as cruelty sufficient enough to dissolve a legal marriage.”
Crucially, the appellant's admission that he consulted psychiatrists in both UAE and Kerala supported the respondent's claims of his behavioral issues. The Court noted that the appellant's discontinuation of prescribed medicines implied he recognized his condition but failed to seek proper treatment.
The Court emphasized that a unilateral decision to dissolve the marriage due to non-cohabitation, without legal grounds justifying a divorce, is not valid.
Considering all the aspects, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court's decisions. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the wife and rejecting the appellant's plea for divorce.
Cause Title: Praseen. K. V. v. Ambili K.A., [2023/KER/62849]
Click here to read/download Judgment
