Xxxxxx vs Xxxxxx
2025 Latest Caselaw 6055 Ker

Kerala High Court

Xxxxxx vs Xxxxxx on 21 May, 2025

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

                                           2025:KER:34750
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                              &
       THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2025 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1947
                  MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023
             AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.10.2022 IN
         OP NO.251 OF 2021 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

         XXX
         XXX

         BY ADVS. JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
         C.JOSEPH JOHNY
         SAMSON MATHEW SAM


RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

         XXX
         XXX

         BY ADV K.RAKESH


     THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                   2025:KER:34750
MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023

                                -2-
                                                      'C.R.'
                           JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

This case lays bare the searing plight of

a woman, forced to endure an unhappy marriage,

characterized by violence - both physical and

mental.

2. The appellant - husband is before us,

challenging the judgment of the learned Family

Court, Malappuram, which allowed OP No.251/2021-

filed by the respondent - wife seeking divorce -

finding him to have treated the latter with

abject cruelty.

3. The respondent, in her pleadings,

recounted her misery, stating that her marriage

with the appellant was solemnized on 29.01.2006

in accordance with the Christian rites. She says 2025:KER:34750 MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023

that, though two children were born in their

union, she had been continuously treated with

cruelty by the appellant and that she had even

suffered grievous injuries and wounds in some of

those episodes. She says that she was thus

pushed to the wall - in a manner of speaking -

particularly when she was physically assaulted

on 03.12.2012 - which required the Police to

intervene and rescue her - compelling her to

file a complaint against the appellant as

C.C.No.544/2012, which, however, ended in his

acquittal because she resiled from her stand

solely to protect him, as also his employment as

a Higher Secondary School Teacher. She alleged

that, however, the situation turned to the worse

and that she, therefore, filed an application

for divorce against the appellant, numbered as

OP No.999/2013; but that it was withdrawn by her 2025:KER:34750 MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023

under the hortative hope that he would mend his

ways.

4. The respondent submits that since it

did not so happen, she filed another Original

Petition for divorce, namely OP No.198/2016,

which was also dismissed for default, since she

chose not to prosecute it, again for the same

reason afore; but that this emboldened the

appellant to further instances of assault -

evident from Ext.A9 discharge summary, relating

to an injury which she sustained when she was

hit on the head by him with an iron rod. She

admits that she did not press charges in this

incident either; but that the scenario became

far worse, which led to Crime No.717/2020, as

also Crime No.259/2022, being forced to be

registered against him, invoking various

provisions, including Sections 447, 451, 427, 2025:KER:34750 MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023

324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). She

says that, therefore, she was left without any

other option but to file the present Original

Petition, seeking divorce.

5. In response, the appellant erected

defence before the learned Trial Court that he

had been acquitted in all the earlier cases

filed against him and that he is suffering from

issues of "anger management", which he sought to

prove through Ext.B1, being a prescription

issued by his doctor on 07.05.2022.

6. However, the learned Family Court found

- in our view correctly - that Ext.B1 carries no

worth since the doctor had not been even cited

as a witness or examined; and further that the

admitted Crimes subsequently registered against

the appellant, after the earlier ones had been

acquitted or withdrawn or dismissed as not being 2025:KER:34750 MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023

pressed, would establish that he was treating

the respondent with grave cruelty consistently.

It thus allowed the petition and granted divorce

under the provisions of Section 10(1)(X) of the

Divorce Act, 1869 ('Act' for short).

7. As said above, the appellant challenges

the findings and the order of the learned Family

Court as being untenable and illegal.

8. We have heard Sri.John Joseph Vettikad

- learned counsel for the appellant and

Sri.K.Rakesh - learned counsel for the

respondent.

9. Sri.John Joseph Vettikad argued the

matter on its merits and then digressed to

inform us that his client is also concerned

about the well-being of his children. He

submitted that his client is now sincerely

contrite for what he had done in the past and 2025:KER:34750 MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023

that he wants to live with his family again,

especially because the children are in their

most formative age.

10. Sri.John Joseph Vettikad then

contended that the evidence on record would not

be sufficient to prove cruelty as statutorily

required under Section 10(1)(X) of the 'Act' and

hence that the findings of the learned Family

Court are in error.

11. Sri.K.Rakesh, to the contrary,

submitted that his client had acted only as a

wife would do in normal circumstances. He

conceded that his client had condoned various

acts of violence committed by the appellant

against her in the past; and further admitted

that the earlier cases and Crimes had been

either withdrawn or dismissed on account of her

own deposition. He, however, argued that this 2025:KER:34750 MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023

would not take away the gravity of the

situation, particularly because the conduct of

the appellant is to such extent that it can

endanger not only his client, but also the

entire family, including the children. He

predicated that the evidence on record is

inescapable to the conclusion that the appellant

had treated his client with immeasurable

cruelty; and hence that no fault can be found

with the learned Family Court in having allowed

the Original Petition.

12. We have examined the evidence on

record and have evaluated it underpinned on the

arguments and pleadings available.

13. The respondent deposed as PW1 and

produced Exts.A1 to A14 documents on her side;

while, the appellant examined himself as RW1 and

produced Ext.B1, which is the aforementioned 2025:KER:34750 MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023

medical prescription issued by a Psychiatrist.

14. Before we move forward, we must answer

one of the primary arguments of Sri.John Joseph

Vettikad, that the appellant is suffering from a

mental illness and thus entitled to some amount

of latitude.

15. We are afraid that we cannot find

favour with the afore argument because, not only

did the appellant offer himself as a witness and

depose as RW1; but he did not even choose to

impel any such case even after having produced

Ext.B1 on record, so as to invoke the

jurisdiction of the court under the provisions

of Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil

Procedure (CPC). He never wanted a "Next Friend"

for himself, and this ineluctably establishes

that his case of mental illness is one now being

projected as a desperate defence, to get over 2025:KER:34750 MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023

the allegations proved against him.

16. There is little doubt that the

instances of assault and cruelty had begun as

early as in the year 2012 or so. This is

manifest from Ext.A3 - which is the Final Report

of the Police in Crime No.179/2012, charged

against the appellant under Sections 498A, 406

and 506 of the IPC, subsequently taken on file

as C.C.No.544/2012; as also Ext.A4 - which is

the Final Report in Crime No.1038/2015, again

lodged under Sections 498A and 506 of the IPC.

Both these Crimes had been registered on the

basis of the complaints of the respondent; and a

third case was also registered as

C.C.No.1360/2015. All these facts remain

expressly admitted by the appellant in his

testimony as RW1.

17. To add to this, Ext.A5 establishes 2025:KER:34750 MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023

that OP No.999/2013 had been filed by the

respondent for divorce against the appellant,

followed by OP No.198/2016 because the former

one was withdrawn as being not pressed. True, OP

No.198/2016 was dismissed for default, as

evident from Ext.A8; and also that the

respondent did not press charges on her

allegation that she was assaulted by an iron rod

by the appellant, which she now proves through

Ext.A9 discharge summary.

18. The afore being so, it is further

conceded by the appellant as RW1, that he is

suffering Ext.A2 order of protection in MC

No.57/2015 filed by the respondent, under the

provisions of Section 12 of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act);

which was followed by at least two other cases,

namely that evident from Ext.A11 - the Final 2025:KER:34750 MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023

Report in Crime No.717/2020, and Exts.A12 and

A13, being the FIR and Final Report in Crime

No.259/2022.

19. Au contraire, the appellant, as seen

above, attempts to project a case that he was

not keeping well cognitively and tried to prove

this through Ext.B1, which remains

uncorroborated and unproved because the doctor

was not even summoned, much less examined.

20. The attempt of the appellant - to take

advantage of the dismissal and closure of the

earlier Crimes and cases against him - as

already detailed above, could surely not run to

his benefit because, as noticed, the outcome was

to such effect only because the respondent had

consciously and voluntarily chosen to speak in

his favour, and she has credibly explained this

by saying that she wanted to save him, as also 2025:KER:34750 MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023

his job as a teacher.

21. It is not unusual for a wife to have

done so!

22. We have no doubt that the respondent

did so since she expected the appellant to turn

a new leaf, but alas, it was not to be.

23. A woman will forgive and condone to

protect her matrimonial union and family.

Forgiveness in such sense is not a passive act,

but is an active and transformative one, to heal

emotional wounds and to obtain inner peace. For

a woman, this is not a sign of her weakness, but

a powerful act of strength, ingrained in her

inner power; by which the chain of resentment

and bitterness is consciously broken. The

emotional burden of holding on to grudges

happens very often in many relationships and

families; and it is the power of a woman to 2025:KER:34750 MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023

forgive, that enables families to rise above

pain and create healthy relationships.

24. But, there is always a limit to what a

woman can endure!

25. Our discussion above is inevitable to

the conclusion that the learned Family Court has

acted correctly and has evaluated the evidence

in the manner expected in law. We, therefore,

find no cogent reason to interfere with the

impugned order in any manner.

26. The learned Family Court has correctly

found the ground of cruelty to have been

established by the respondent under Section

10(1)(X) of the 'Act' and hence that the

respondent is entitled to a decree for divorce,

which we also find to be fully justified in the

matrix of the factual and evidential

circumstances and factors, as have been 2025:KER:34750 MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023

presented and established.

In the afore circumstances, this Appeal is

dismissed; however, without making any order as

to costs and directing the parties to suffer

their respective costs.

The Registry is directed to anonymise the

names and identities of the parties, in order to

preserve their privacy.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

                                    M.B.SNEHALATHA
akv                                      JUDGE
                                                2025:KER:34750
MAT.APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 68/2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.544/2012 OF THE JFCM MALAPPURAM DATED 9.6,2015

ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.1360/2015 OF THE JFCM MALAPPURAM DATED 27.9,2017