Kerala High Court
Babu vs Seethal on 13 June, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:42356
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2013 IN OP NO.66 OF 2009
OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
BABU
AGED 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT VELIYATHU HOUSE, OKKAL P.O, ONAMPILLY
CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST.
BY ADVS. SHRI.M.K.DILEEPAN
SHRI.DEEPAK T.NEDUNGADAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SEETHAL, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.RAJAN, THAIPLAVILL
HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA PO CHENGANNUR, NOW RESIDING AT
NSS VANITHA SAMAJAM HOSTEL, CHITTOOR ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
13.06.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.175/2014, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:42356
Mat.Appeal Nos.171 and 175 of 2014
-: 2 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2013 IN OP NO.158 OF
2009 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
BABU, AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, RESIDING AT VELIYATHU
HOUSE, OKKAL PO, ONAMPILLY, CHELAMATTOM
VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS. SHRI.M.K.DILEEPAN
SHRI.DEEPAK T.NEDUNGADAN
SMT.P.SUMITHRA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SEETHAL, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.RAJAN, THALPLAVIL
HOUSE, PO KARAKKADU, CHENGANNUR, NOW RESIDING
AT NSS VANITHA SAMAJAM HOSTEL,CHITTOOR ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
13.06.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.171/2014, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:42356
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal Nos.171 and 175 of 2014
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
O.P.No.158 of 2009 was filed by the husband against
the wife, seeking divorce. O.P.No.66 of 2009 was filed
by the wife against the husband, for restitution of
conjugal rights. The Family Court, as per the common
judgment, has dismissed the divorce petition and granted
the prayer for restitution. The husband is in appeal.
2. The marriage between the parties was
solemnised on 24.05.1999. They are living separately
since 13.04.2008. The husband seeks for divorce alleging
cruelty. The husband alleged that the wife had refused
to carryout the responsibilities of a wife. She wanted
2025:KER:42356
Mat.Appeal Nos.171 and 175 of 2014
to be with her mother and did not care about the family.
There were attempts on the part of the wife to commit
suicide. The life with the wife has become miserable. It
is on the said allegations that he seeks for divorce.
3. The wife denied the allegations. She filed
Original Petition claiming restitution of conjugal
rights.
4. The Family Court held that the husband failed
to prove the allegations levelled, and dismissed the
divorce petition and decreed for restitution of conjugal
rights.
5. We have heard Sri.M.K. Dileepan, the learned
counsel for the appellant. The respondent-wife though
initially appeared in these appeals, later remained ex
parte.
6. A reading of the evidence of the wife as PW1
2025:KER:42356
Mat.Appeal Nos.171 and 175 of 2014
and the husband as RW1 reveals that, there are
substances in the allegations of the husband that the
wife was more interested in living with the company of
the mother than to carryout her duties and
responsibilities as a wife. After the death of the
father, the mother was residing at Chengannur. The
marital house is at Perumbavoor. It has come out in
evidence that the wife was a frequenter to her mother's
residence at Chengannur, leaving the husband and
children at the marital home. The husband has deposed
that the wife used to leave the marital house to be with
her mother even without informing him and without his
consent.
7. The wife as PW1 would depose that the husband
wanted her to do some job and earn money without
permitting her to go to be with her mother. This
2025:KER:42356
Mat.Appeal Nos.171 and 175 of 2014
suggests that she was more interested in being with her
mother rather than taking care the interests of the
family. It has come out in evidence that, to attend the
death anniversary of her father, the wife went to the
residence of her mother on 13.04.2008 and she returned
only on 26.04.2008. The two minor children were with
father. Thus, we find force in the contention of the
husband that the wife was more interested in being with
her mother rather than taking care the interests of the
children and family.
8. The husband has a further allegation that, on
two occasions, the wife attempted to commit suicide. The
fact that, at least once there had been such an attempt
is not denied by the wife, though she would offer some
explanations. Definitely, such acts on the part of the
wife amount to mental cruelty on the husband.
2025:KER:42356
Mat.Appeal Nos.171 and 175 of 2014
9. The Family Court has ignored the failure of
the wife in having wished away her duties as a wife
stating that it is the duty of the daughter to take care
of the mother. While there cannot be any doubt that it
is the duty of the daughter to take care of the mother,
it does not mean that the duties as a wife to her family
is to be overlooked or neglected. We are unable to agree
with the reasoning given by the Family Court.
10. We find that the evidence on record has not
been appreciated by the Family Court in the right
perspective. The evidence would justify the contention
of the husband regarding mental cruelty. A decree of
divorce is liable to be granted on the grounds as above.
Necessarily, on such finding, the prayer for restitution
of conjugal rights is liable to be declined.
Resultantly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment
2025:KER:42356
Mat.Appeal Nos.171 and 175 of 2014
in O.P.No.158 of 2009 and O.P.No.66 of 2009 are set
aside. The marriage of the parties will stand dissolved
by a decree of divorce. O.P.No.158 of 2009 will stand
allowed and O.P.No.66 of 2009 will stand dismissed. No
costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
yd
