Kerala High Court
T.S.Sinilal vs Chandrika on 12 September, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal No.813 of 2019
1
2025:KER:67331
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 21ST BHADRA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 813 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.07.2019 IN OP(HMA) NO.962
OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
T.S.SINILAL
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O SURENDRAN, THOPPIL NIVAS,
KARUVATTA MURI, KARUVATTA VILLAGE,
KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
BY ADV SHRI.GERRY DOUGLES S.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
CHANDRIKA
W/O T.S.SINILAL, AGED 46 YEARS, THOPPIL NIVAS,
KARUVATTA MURI, KARUVATTA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY
TALUK, ALAPPUZHA- 690517 ( FROM ALUMMOOTTIL
VRINDAVAN VEEDU, NANGIARKULANGARA MURI, CHEPPAD
VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA - 690513)
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.B.HOOD
SMT.M.ISHA
SRI.AMAL KASHA
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
10.09.2025, THE COURT ON 12.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.813 of 2019
2
2025:KER:67331
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat. Appeal No.813 OF 2019
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 12th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The judgment passed by the Family Court, Mavelikkara,
dismissing the petition for divorce filed on the ground of
matrimonial cruelty is challenged in this appeal by the
petitioner-husband.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent was solemnized on 24.09.1994 as per Hindu rites
and customs. Three children were born out of the wedlock.
For the sake of convenience, the appellant will
hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and the wife
as the respondent.
3. The petitioner alleges that soon after the
marriage, the respondent started behaving cruelly towards
the petitioner and his mother and, on some occasions, she
even severely assaulted his mother and father. The
2025:KER:67331
respondent is also alleged to have neglected the needs of
the petitioner and refused to live with him. On
13.04.2007, the respondent returned to her home without
even intimating the petitioner. She continued to harass
him by constantly abusing him. Though the respondent,
after a mediation conducted at the instance of SNDP Sakha
Yogam on 23.08.2011, agreed to co-operate with the
petitioner and live with him as a devoted wife, she
allegedly repeated her misdeeds, continued to quarrel with
the petitioner, and made it impossible for the marriage to
continue.
4. By amending the original petition, the petitioner
further alleged that the respondent used to make false
accusations that he was engaged in an illicit relationship
with another woman, which amounted to mental cruelty.
According to the petitioner, from 26.10.2011 onwards, they
have been living separately, as the respondent refused to
live with him.
5. The respondent denied the allegations and
contended that she always treated the petitioner and his
2025:KER:67331
parents with utmost love and care. According to her, she
had faithfully discharged all her duties as a devoted
wife, and it was the petitioner who ill-treated her. She
further alleged that the petitioner was in an illicit
relationship with a woman (not the one named by the
petitioner) and pointed out that the Kerala Kaumudi Flash
Evening Daily had reported about the same. She further
contended that she was prepared to resume cohabitation
with the petitioner, provided he severed his relationship
with the said woman.
6. Along with the present case, the Family Court
jointly tried a petition filed by the respondent for
recovery of gold and money. The petitioner adduced oral
evidence as PW1 and produced Exts. A1 and A2. The
respondent examined RW1 to RW3 and produced Exts. B1 to
B26. After evaluating the evidence, the Family Court
allowed the claim for recovery of gold and money and
dismissed the petition for divorce.
2025:KER:67331
7. We have heard Sri. Gerry Dougles S., the learned
counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. T.B. Hood, the
learned counsel for the respondent.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the matrimonial relationship between the parties had
irretrievably broken down at least since 26.10.2011, and
that there was no scope for reunion, as the respondent had
consistently subjected the petitioner to cruelty. He
pointed out that she had even instituted a false criminal
case against the petitioner, which resulted in an
acquittal. It was further submitted that the respondent
had made baseless allegations of illicit relationship
against the petitioner, but failed to prove the same,
which by itself was sufficient to grant a decree of
divorce. The counsel also argued that, as the spouses had
been living separately for the past 14 years, a decree of
divorce could be granted on the ground that the marriage
had irretrievably broken down.
9. On the other hand, Sri. T.B. Hood, the learned
counsel for the respondent, contended that the petitioner
2025:KER:67331
had miserably failed to prove the allegations of cruelty.
The trial court had rightly held that the petitioner's
evidence was insufficient to dissolve the marriage on the
ground of matrimonial cruelty. It was further argued that
there was no reason to hold that the respondent had made a
false allegation of illicit relationship, since she had
reasonably substantiated her claim by examining RW2, a
relative of the petitioner, and by producing a newspaper
report showing that such a rumour existed in society.
Apart from the interested testimony of the petitioner, no
evidence was adduced to support his contentions, and
hence, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment.
10. We have carefully perused the records while
analysing the conflicting contentions of both sides. While
it is true that the petitioner did not adduce any
independent evidence to prove the allegation of cruelty,
it is undisputed that the respondent had filed a criminal
case against the petitioner and his father under Section
498A read with Section 34 IPC, in which both were
2025:KER:67331
acquitted. The respondent had also alleged that the
petitioner had an illicit relationship with another woman.
To support this, she produced Ext. B3 newspaper report.
However, on perusal, we find that the report does not in
any way connect the petitioner with the person against
whom the imputations were made. Though the respondent
examined a witness to prove the allegation, he admitted
during cross-examination that he had no direct knowledge
of the matter, except that he had once seen them
travelling together in a car. We do not find the
interested testimony of the respondent credible, in
respect of the above matter. In short, the respondent
failed to prove the allegation of the petitioner's illicit
relationship.
11. The petitioner and the respondent have been
living separately since 26.10.2011. There were multiple
rounds of litigation between them, including a criminal
case. It is also in evidence that mediation had taken
place at the instance of SNDP Sakha Yogam, but the parties
2025:KER:67331
could not continue their marital life even after such an
attempt.
12. After considering the above factors in the light
of the evidence adduced, we find considerable merit in the
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the continuance of a peaceful and meaningful marital life
between the parties is practically impossible. The conduct
of the respondent, as evidenced by her persistent
suspicion and repeated litigations, including a criminal
case, points to a marital environment devoid of trust and
emotional stability. In these circumstances, compelling
the petitioner to continue in such a strained relationship
would amount to inflicting further mental cruelty upon
him. The cumulative effect of these factors justifies the
petitioner's claim for divorce.
13. Admittedly the spouses have been living
separately since 26.10.2011. The respondent has not so far
made any application for restitution of conjugal rights,
despite claiming that she is willing to resume the
relationship. The petitioner is now aged 57 years. The
2025:KER:67331
prolonged separation, coupled with the unending discord
and the hostile environment portrayed through the
pleadings and testimony, clearly establishes that the
marital bond has broken down irretrievably. The Apex Court
in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511) observed
that the marriage becomes a fiction, though it is
supported by a legal tie, when there is continuous
separation and loss of essential bond between the couple.
It was further held that, if there has been a long period
of continuous separation, it is fair to conclude that the
matrimonial bond is beyond repair.
14. In Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [2023 SCC
OnLine SC 544], it has been held that where there is an
irretrievable breakdown of marriage, then dissolution of
marriage is the only solution. In Rajib Kumar vs. Sushmita
Saha [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727], the Apex Court held that
keeping the parties together despite an irretrievable
breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides.
Such a long separation without any intention to resume
cohabitation amounts to cruelty to the spouse. After
2025:KER:67331
considering all the above aspects, we are of the view that
the marriage between the parties could be dissolved on the
said ground as well.
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The marriage
between the parties will stand dissolved by a decree of
divorce. No costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
2025:KER:67331
APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 813/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
22/08/2019 IN AS NO. 178/2013 AND AS NO.
179/2013 BY LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT - II MAVELIKKARA
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE SPECIAL
DEPUTY COLLECTOR LANH & COMPETENT
AUTHORITY FOR LAND ACQUISITION AND
VALUATION STATEMENT DATED 30/03/2022
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN AS NO. 16/2021
DATED 24/07/2024 BY LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE -III, MAVELIKARA
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF MEDIATION REPORT NO. 516/2024
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25/07/2016 IN
CC NO. 405/2014 BEFORE HON'BLE JFCM COURT
-II, HARIPAD UNDER SEC 323, 324, 506(I)
AND 498A OF IPC R/W SEC 34
Annexure A6 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT GIVEN BY ADDL.
DIRECTOR GENERAL (INTELLIGENCE) DATED
4/11/2016 TO THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. 1242/2016 DATED
30/08/2016 BEFORE HARIPAD PS UNDER SEC 75
OF JJ ACT, SEC 341, 323, 506(I) OF IPC R/W
SEC 34
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF FIR 1244/2016 (AVAILABLE
PAGES ONLY) DATED 30/08/2016 BEFORE
HARIPAD PS UNDER SEC 323, 294A, 427,
506(I) OF IPC R/W SEC 34
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF FIR 27/2023 DATED 9/01/2023
BEFORE HARIPAD PS UNDER SEC 379 OF IPC
