Kerala High Court: In a matrimonial appeal filed by a husband challenging decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by his wife and rejection of his prayer for divorce, the Division Bench of Anil K. Narendran and Sophy Thomas*, JJ. refused to interfere with the impugned judgments supporting the wife’s contentions.
Factual Background
The couple got married on 7-05-2012, who lived as a husband and wife initially at the husband’s house and thereafter in Abu Dhabi. It was alleged that the wife ill-treated her husband, kept a distance from him, defamed him in front of his Company’s Managing Supervisor, was never ready to cook for him, and quarreled with his mother at the matrimonial home. She left her matrimonial home on 15-01-2013 and filed false criminal cases against her husband, followed by seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The husband apprehended losing job if he continued with her and filed for dissolution of marriage on the ground of matrimonial cruelty by wife.
On the other hand, the wife alleged of husband having some sexual perversions, who compelled her to consume medicines to improve her breast size and compared her with other women. She suspected her husband of having some mental problem and also alleged that he was taken to doctors at Abu Dhabi, was prescribed medicines, but discontinued them. Her mother-in-law did not allow her to stay in the matrimonial home which compelled her to live separately from her husband since 15-01-2013.
The Family Court found the husband ineligible for a decree of divorce, and the wife being entitled to decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The said decision of Family Court was challenged in the instant matter.
Court’s Analysis of Cruelty by Wife against Husband
While considering the wife’s communication with her husband’s employer, the Court noted that she was lamenting about the nature of her husband for leaving her in Kerala returning to UAE, was expressing anxiety about the behavioural changes seen, seeking his employer’s assistance to find out what was wrong with him, and to bring him back to normal life. The Court expressed that “we could read the mind of a desperate wife, who was deserted by her husband” and pointed towards the husband’s admission of consultation with psychiatrists as against allegations of wife making reckless, defamatory or false accusations. This led the Court to acknowledge that the wife was ready to continue with her husband in his ups and downs and refused to take the communication with his employer as an act of cruelty for dissolution of marriage. The Court also regarded the wife’s email to her husband’s employer as “outcry of a desperate wife, to live with her husband, after bringing him back to normalcy”.
Pointing towards the husband’s allegations that wife complaining before various authorities against her husband amounted to cruelty, the Court expressed that “the husband deserted the wife without providing her shelter and maintenance, it is her legal right to proceed against her husband, and filing of complaints to get what was legally due to her from her husband, will not amount to cruelty.” On the husband being acquitted by the criminal court, the Court commented that “The final outcome of a case depends upon so many factors and the acquittal of the appellant or his relatives in a complaint filed by the wife cannot be taken as a ground to find that the complaint itself was false or vexatious.”
Landing on another ground of cruelty as alleged by the husband that the wife spit on his body in the presence of relatives, the Court highlighted that none of those relatives were examined by the husband to prove the incident, and also, admitted that the wife had apologized, and they lived together. The Court disregarded the said incident as cruelty for dissolution of marriage stating that even if the same happened, the husband condoned it.
On the allegations of wife not knowing cooking and not preparing food for her husband amounting to cruelty, or even her contentions of sexual perversions against the husband, the Court was of the view that even then, the wife wanted to continue with her husband. It also pointed towards the husband’s claims of marriage being practically and emotionally dead, and the couple living separately for 10 years, hinting at no scope for any reunion.
Conclusion
The Court relied on Uthara v. Sivapriyan, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 921 restricting one party from unilaterally deciding to walk out of marriage to depict non-cohabitation. Considering the totality of circumstances in the instant matter, the Court refused to interfere with the impugned judgments allowing restitution of conjugal rights of wife and denying divorce petition by husband. The Court therefore dismissed the instant appeal.
[X v. Y, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 9090, decided on 17-10-2023]
Judgment by: Justice Sophy Thomas
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant: Advocate Santhosh P. Poduval, Advocate R. Rajitha, Advocate Vinaya V. Nair
For Respondent: Advocate V.M. Krishnakumar
