[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Reshma U vs Diji S on 29 January, 2026
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2026:KER:6939
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.11.2015 IN OP NO.506 OF
2011 OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/S:
RESHMA U.
D/O. USHA, SAMANUAYAM, T.C 3/2735, PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV
SHRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
DIJI S.
S/O. LATE T.A.S KUMAR, PANKAJA SADANAM, PERUMKUZHI
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 305.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.PRADEEP
SMT.T.THASMI
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2026, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.14/2016, 15/2016, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6939
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.11.2015 IN OP NO.1418 OF
2011 OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/S:
RESHMA U.
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O.USHA, SAMANUAYAM, TC 3/2735, PATTOM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV
SHRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
DIJI S.KUMAR
S/O.LATE T.A.S KUMAR, PANKAJA SADANAM, PERUMKUZHI P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 695 305.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.PRADEEP
SMT.T.THASMI
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2026, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.2/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6939
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.1417 OF 2011 OF
FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/S:
RESHMA U.
D/O.USHA, SAMANUAYAM, TC 3/2735, PATTOM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV
SHRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
DIJI S.
S/O.LATE T.A.S KUMAR, PANKAJA SADANAM, PERUMKUZHI P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 695 305.
BY ADV DR.K.P.PRADEEP
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2026, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.2/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6939
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal Nos.2, 14 and 15 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
These appeals arise from the proceedings between the
husband and the wife.
2. Mat.Appeal No.2 of 2016 arises from the original
petition filed by the husband, seeking a decree of divorce.
The original petition was allowed by the Family Court
against which the wife is in appeal.
3. Mat.Appeal No.14 of 2016 is against the judgment
in the original petition filed by the wife against the
husband, seeking recovery of gold and money. The original
petition was allowed in part. The wife is in appeal
challenging that part of the decree which negatived her
claim.
2026:KER:6939
Mat.Appeal Nos.2, 14 and 15 of 2016
4. Mat.Appeal No.15 of 2016 is filed by the wife
challenging the dismissal of the original petition filed by
her seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
5. The marriage between the parties was solemnsied on
28.06.2007. According to the wife, at the time of marriage,
she was provided with 203 sovereigns of gold ornaments and
an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The wife alleges
misappropriation of 186 sovereigns of gold and the money by
the husband.
6. While the husband did not deny the receipt of
Rs.3,00,000/-, he contended that the amount was given for
modification of his house. The claim of the wife with regard
to Rs.1,00,000/- was denied by the husband. The claim of the
wife that at the time of marriage she had 203 sovereigns of
gold ornaments, out of which 186 sovereigns were
misappropriated by the husband, was also denied.
7. The Family Court negatived the claim for gold
2026:KER:6939
Mat.Appeal Nos.2, 14 and 15 of 2016
ornaments and granted a decree for Rs.3,00,000/-.
7. Husband sought divorce alleging cruelty and
desertion. Though, the wife denied the allegations levelled,
the Family Court upheld the plea of cruelty and granted a
decree of divorce. In the light of the decree in the divorce
petition, the original petition for restitution of conjugal
rights was dismissed.
8. We have heard Shri.T.R. Harikumar, the learned
counsel for the wife and Dr.K.P. Pradeep, the learned
counsel for the husband.
9. Firstly, coming to the claim of the wife for 186
sovereigns of gold ornaments, it is the contention of the
husband that the ornaments of the wife were kept by her in a
locker, which was maintained and operated by her. It has
come out in evidence that the wife had an account with the
Medical College Branch of the Central Bank of India, where
she had a locker facility. The wife as PW1 did not deny the
2026:KER:6939
Mat.Appeal Nos.2, 14 and 15 of 2016
allegation that she was having such a locker facility. The
wife had no case that the husband had operated the locker or
that they had operated it jointly. The husband as CPW1
deposed that he had not operated the locker of the wife. The
same is not challenged during cross-examination. In the
above circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Family
Court that there is no evidence to prove misappropriation of
the gold ornaments belonging to the wife, is justified. The
finding of the Family Court in the said regard warrants no
interference.
10. Coming to the original petition for divorce, the
allegation is that the wife failed to take part in the
rituals in connection with his father's demise. The pleading
is that, on the 3rd day of the demise, the wife returned to
her house without waiting for 16th day rituals. It is the
case of the wife that it was the period of her menstrual
cycle and hence she could not participate in the 16th day
2026:KER:6939
Mat.Appeal Nos.2, 14 and 15 of 2016
rituals. Yet another allegation is that, because of the
failure of the wife to accompany him to Karnataka, where he
got an employment, he could not accept the employment.
However, the same is not substantiated by any evidence. The
other allegation is that the wife was quarrelsome with his
mother. The said allegation also remain unsubstantiated. We
are unable to concur with the view adopted by the Family
Court which held that the above allegations amounted to
cruelty.
11. Admittedly, the parties are living separately
since 05.04.2009. The wife alleges ill-treatment from the
husband. On a reading of her evidence, we agree with the
Family Court in its observation that the evidence would give
an impression that she has approached the Court seeking
dissolution of marriage. The Family Court noticed that the
claim of the wife for restitution lacks bonafides and that
it is only a counterblast and an afterthought for the
2026:KER:6939
Mat.Appeal Nos.2, 14 and 15 of 2016
husband's petition for divorced. The parties have been
living separately since 05.04.2009. The husband filed the
Divorce O.P on 30.03.2011. The wife filed the restitution
O.P only on 07.09.2011. The Family Court was right in its
observation regarding the bonafides in filing the
restitution petition. Seventeen years have elapsed since
separation. It is practically conceded before us by both
sides that a re-union is impossible. In the light of the
above, we are of the opinion that the decree for dissolution
of marriage can be granted on the ground of desertion,
though, not on the ground of cruelty. The original petition
for restitution is only to be dismissed.
12. The learned counsel for the husband submits that
the decree for Rs.3,00,000/- with interest as decreed by the
Family Court shall be complied with and the amount with
accrued interest shall be deposited before the Family Court
on or before 07.02.2026.
2026:KER:6939
Mat.Appeal Nos.2, 14 and 15 of 2016
13. In the light of the above, modifying the judgment
in O.P.No.506 of 2011, the marriage between the parties is
dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion.
No interference is called for with regard to the judgment in
the other two original petitions.
The Mat Appeals are disposed of as above.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
yd
