The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a husband against a decree of divorce granted to his wife by the Family Court, Malappuram. The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha upheld the decree under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, holding that the husband had subjected his wife to grave and consistent cruelty.
Background
The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 29 January 2006 according to Christian rites, and two children were born from the union. The wife filed OP No. 251 of 2021 before the Family Court, Malappuram, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. She alleged that she had suffered repeated physical and mental cruelty, including a serious assault on 3 December 2012 that required police intervention and led to the registration of Crime No.179/2012, later taken on file as C.C. No.544/2012.
Though she withdrew earlier complaints and divorce petitions in the hope that the appellant would change his behaviour, she stated that the situation worsened, compelling her to file further complaints, including Crime Nos. 717/2020 and 259/2022 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Submissions of the Parties
The husband contended that he had been acquitted in earlier criminal cases and claimed to suffer from anger management issues, producing Ext.B1 — a medical prescription dated 7 May 2022 — to support this claim. He challenged the Family Court’s decree as unsustainable and alleged that the evidence did not satisfy the threshold of cruelty under the law.
On the other hand, the wife maintained that although she had earlier condoned his violent conduct, she was ultimately forced to seek divorce when the appellant’s behaviour became increasingly dangerous. Her counsel argued that the consistent pattern of cruelty was well-established through documentary evidence and admissions by the appellant himself.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court observed that the Family Court had properly evaluated the evidence and that the dismissal or withdrawal of earlier complaints could not benefit the appellant, since those were a result of the respondent voluntarily choosing to protect his employment and family.
Rejecting the appellant’s plea of mental illness, the Court noted:
“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 the allegations proved against him.”
The Bench remarked on the respondent’s conduct in forgiving the appellant despite repeated assaults:
“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… But, there is always a limit to what a woman can endure.”
The Court concluded that the findings of cruelty by the Family Court were fully justified and supported by the evidence, including multiple criminal cases initiated by the wife, a protection order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and hospital records of injuries sustained.
Decision
The High Court held that the ground of cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 had been clearly established and affirmed the decree of divorce granted to the wife. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs. The Court also directed the Registry to anonymise the names of the parties to protect their privacy.
