The Kerala High Court, in a significant judgment, has granted divorce to a woman who had been separated from her husband for 14 years, emphasizing that the concept of matrimonial cruelty cannot be defined with mathematical precision. The ruling came in MAT.APPEAL NO. 1131 OF 2017, delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar.
Background:
The case involves a woman who, at the age of 17 in 2001, eloped with a married man. They lived together, and he divorced his first wife in 2004. The couple then married under the Special Marriage Act in 2005 and had a child in 2007. However, their relationship was tumultuous, marked by alleged alcoholism and infidelity on the husband’s part. The situation culminated on May 8, 2010, when the wife was allegedly assaulted and locked in a room. She left with her father on May 10, 2010, and never returned.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Definition and interpretation of matrimonial cruelty
2. Consideration of long-term separation in divorce cases
3. Assessment of evidence in matrimonial disputes
Court’s Decision and Observations:
The High Court overturned the Family Court’s judgment, which had dismissed the wife’s petition for divorce. The bench made several important observations:
1. On the nature of cruelty:
The court stated, “It is impossible to define the concept of ‘matrimonial cruelty’ with mathematical precision or exactitude. ‘Cruelty’, most of the time, is a status of mind and depend upon the vicissitudes and permutations of the events โ it being a personal issue, guided by the impressions in the mind of a person subjected to such”.
2. On the subjectivity of cruelty:
The judgment emphasized, “It would never be possible for any Court, or for that matter, any person, to decide that a particular action is ‘cruelty’ or otherwise, in a given situation, as a general rule”.
3. On long-term separation:
The court noted the 14-year separation, stating, “A break of more than 14 years without the respondent making an attempt โ with no such, having been brought before us – to seek the company of his wife; and then saying that he is willing to live with her and take ‘care’ of her, can only be seen to be patriarchal in approach, which this Court cannot countenance”.
4. On forced continuation of marriage:
The bench concluded, “We are certain that the appellant is entitled to succeed, since, she cannot be forced to remain in a marriage against her will and without her volition”.
Also Read
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court’s judgment, and dissolved the marriage between the parties with effect from the date of the judgment.
Parties and Legal Representation:
– Appellant/Petitioner: Represented by Adv. A. Parvathi Menon and others
– Respondent: Not present or represented
