Kerala High Court

Anand P.K.V vs Sulabha Devi C.C on 7 January, 2025

Author: Sathish Ninan

Bench: Sathish Ninan

                                                2025:KER:595



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

                             &

      THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

  TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 17TH POUSHA, 1946

                 MAT.APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2014

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2013 IN OP NO.763 OF 2011

                OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

         ANAND P.K.V.
         AGED 45 YEARS
         S/O.K.V.KUNHIKANNAN, HINDU RELIGION, THIYYA CASTE,
         RESIDING AT CHANDRIKA, KADAMBOOR AMSOM, DESOM,
         P.O.KADAMBOOR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.


         BY ADVS.
         SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
         SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
                                              2025:KER:595

Mat.Appeal No.377 of 2014
                            -: 2 :-



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

           SULABHA DEVI C.C.
           AGED 41 YEARS
           D/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, HINDU RELIGION, THIYYA
           CASTE, RESIDING AT NISTHUYLA, P.O.KANNAVAM,
           KANNAVAM AMSOM, KANNAVAM DESOM, THALASSERY
           TALUK, NEAR THODIKULAM TEMPLE, KANNUR
           DISTRICT-670 101.


           BY ADVS.
           P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI
           MURALI PALLATH



THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                       2025:KER:595


           SATHISH NINAN & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
              = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                   Mat.Appeal No.377 of 2014
              = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
            Dated this the 7th day of January, 2025

                               JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition filed by the husband, seeking

dissolution of marriage, was dismissed by the Family

Court. He is in appeal.

2. The marriage between the parties were

solemnised on 22.04.2001. The marital relationship got

strained and they have been living separately since

29.08.2002. A girl child was born in the wedlock on

27.05.2002. The grounds on which divorce is sought are,

cruelty and desertion.

3. The Family Court held that the ground urged

has not been proved and accordingly, dismissed the

original petition.

2025:KER:595

4. We have heard Shri.Abhilash K.N., the learned

counsel on behalf of the appellant-husband and Shri.P.M.

Unni Namboodiri, the learned counsel for the respondent-

wife.

5. At the time of marriage, the husband was

working as an Attender in ITI, Kannur and the

respondent-wife was a Government U.P. School teacher.

According to the husband, the wife was compelling him to

have a separate residence independent of his parents.

They were residing along with his aged mother and

unmarried brother. He found it difficult to agree for

the wife's demand. According to the husband, though the

wife got admission for B.Ed course in an institution,

which was closer to the matrimonial home, she insisted

to live at her parental house.

6. According to the wife, the husband had, prior to

the marriage, represented that he is an Instructor in 2025:KER:595

the ITI and after the marriage it was realised that he

was only an Attender. The husband, while denying the

same, claimed that the wife was always picking up

quarrels with him and used to ridicule him in the

presence of others.

7. The fact that the husband and wife lived

together only for a short duration, is borne out by the

evidence. The plea of the wife is that she was cheated

by the husband with regard to his avocation and she

realised it after marriage. If that allegation is true

that must have sparked the discord between the two. It

is probable that the wife was reluctant to live with

him. Admittedly they lived together only for a very

short duration. The wife had gone to her parental house

admittedly, for the reason of studies or otherwise.

8. Earlier, the husband had filed an original

petition for dissolution of marriage as O.P.No.962 of 2025:KER:595

2009. The wife had filed a criminal case against the

husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Pending the proceedings, there was a compromise. Based

upon the same, the husband withdrew the original

petition. However, the wife did not withdraw the

criminal proceedings. Though an attempt was made by him

to get the original petition restored, it was

unsuccessful. It is thereafter that the present original

petition was filed. Apart from the cruelty of keeping

away from the company and living separately, this

amounts to further mental cruelty, it alleged.

9. The fact that there was an attempted compromise

pursuant to which the husband withdrew the earlier

original petition is not in dispute. Admittedly, atleast

since 2002, the parties are living separately.

Evidently, there has been irretrievable break down in

the relationship. The instances as noticed supra would 2025:KER:595

amount to mental cruelty. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4

SCC], the Apex Court has laid down illustrative cases

where inference of "mental cruelty" can be drawn. The

Apex Court further held that where there has been a long

period of continuous separation, it may fairly be

concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair.

The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a

legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in

such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on

the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and

emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may

lead to mental cruelty.

10. In K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa [(2013) 5 SCC 226] , the

Apex Court took note of the unbridgeable distance

between spouses and the consequent irretrievable

breakdown of marriage to order separation. The above was

followed by this court in Geetha S. v. Pradeep G. [2024 (4) KLT 2025:KER:595

527] and Sivadasan v. Prabha [2017 SCC OnLine Ker. 31219] . We are of

the opinion that this is a fit case where the marriage

between the parties is liable to be dissolved.

11. During the course of hearing the appeal, it

was brought to the notice of this Court that execution

petition is pending before the Family Court, Thalassery

with regard to arrears of maintenance/educational

expenses of the child. Today, when the matter was taken

up, the appellant-husband paid an amount of

Rs.1,57,600/- to the counsel for the respondent-wife

towards the amount due under the execution petition. A

joint memo has been filed with regard to the receipt of

the said amount in full and final satisfaction of the

claim under execution petition. It is undertaken before

this Court that the husband shall pay a further amount

of Rs.50,000/- within one month from today towards

educational expenses of the child. It is further 2025:KER:595

undertaken that the husband shall also share the

marriage expenses of the child. The undertaking is

recorded.

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment

and decree of the Family Court are set aside. The

original petition is allowed granting a decree of

dissolution of the marriage solemnised between the

parties on 22.04.2001.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

Sd/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE yd 2025:KER:595

APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 377/2014

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

Annexure R1(A) TRUE COPY OF OP TICKET NO. H19-202606 DATED 10.07.2019 IN RESPECT OF THE RESPONDENT

Annexure R1(B) TRUE COPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 10.07.2019 IN RESPECT OF THE RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE CASUALITY MEDICAL OFFICER, GENERAL HOSPITAL, THALASSERY

Annexure R1(C) TRUE COPY OF OP TICKET NO. H 19 -202608 DATED 10.07.2019 IN RESPECT OF NANDANA (DAUGHTER)

Annexure R1(D) TRUE COPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 10.07.2019 IN RESPECT OF NANDANA (DAUGHTER) ISSUED BY THE CASUALITY MEDICAL OFFICER, GENERAL HOSPITAL, THALASSERY