The High Court of Kerala, in a Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, has held that demanding a separate residence away from a husband’s family without sufficient reason constitutes an act of matrimonial cruelty. Reversing a trial court ruling, the High Court allowed an appeal filed by a husband seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, and granted a decree of divorce.
Background of the Case
,The appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) were married on May 14, 2015, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of the marriage, the husband was employed as an Electrical Engineer in Dubai. A week after the wedding, the couple moved to Dubai and resided in a rented residence alongside the husband’s parents.
On June 14, 2016, during the seventh month of her pregnancy, the wife returned to Kerala and subsequently gave birth to a female child on August 26, 2016. The husband alleged that despite repeated requests, his wife refused to return to Dubai unless he fulfilled two conditions: providing a separate two-bedroom flat and not residing with his parents.
The husband contended that communications were routed through his wife’s brother, who reiterated these demands. He further cited disputes over the child’s naming ceremony being fixed without consulting his family, lack of cooperation in securing a visa for the child, and the wife’s family conducting the child’s Choroon ceremony at Guruvayur Temple without informing him. Although the husband initially instituted O.P. No. 290/2017 for restitution of conjugal rights, he later withdrew it and filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
The wife opposed the divorce petition before the Family Court, Kannur (OP No. 519 of 2017), denying that she had ever treated her husband with cruelty or demanded a separate residence. She alleged that the husband and his mother had misbehaved with and ill-treated her, causing her mental cruelty. On October 30, 2021, the Family Court dismissed the husband’s petition, concluding that there was no serious dispute between the spouses other than grievances regarding the mother-in-law’s interference.
Arguments and Evidence Analyzed
During the appellate proceedings, the High Court examined the oral testimony of the husband (PW1) and wife (RW1), alongside documentary evidence marked as Exts. A1 to A3, which included mobile phones and a CD containing audio recordings.
The husband produced recorded telephonic conversations between himself and the wife’s brother, as well as a conversation between the wife and his father dated October 28, 2016. During cross-examination, the wife admitted the contents of her recorded conversation with her father-in-law, in which she explicitly acknowledged that neither her husband nor his parents had ill-treated or spoken harshly to her while she resided with them.
The High Court noted that this admission directly contradicted her written objection claiming ill-treatment and mental cruelty. The court rejected her explanation that she made those statements merely to avoid a divorce, characterizing it as too feeble to merit acceptance. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the wife gave evasive answers regarding recorded phone calls between her brother and the husband, and her brother failed to appear in court despite receiving a summons.
The Court’s Analysis and Legal Findings
Evaluating the facts, the High Court observed that the wife had failed to establish any justifiable reason for refusing to reside with her husband’s family. Addressing the core legal issue, the court observed:
“A demand for a separate residence away from the husband’s family, without sufficient reason, by itself constitutes an act of cruelty.”
The court also took note of the fact that the parties had been living separately for at least nine years. Referring to legal precedents, the Bench cited the decision in Deepak Bose v. Shrabonee Bose (2022 SCC OnLine All 1967), where the Allahabad High Court established that “prolonged desertion and separation of a spouse would also constitute mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
Judgment and Outcome
The High Court concluded that the Family Court had failed to consider these crucial aspects and had arrived at an erroneous conclusion. Holding that the husband successfully established matrimonial cruelty, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s judgment.
The appeal was allowed, and the marriage between the parties was officially dissolved by a decree of divorce, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Nimeesh Kunhiraman v. Rathna Dehannath Kottarath
Case No.: Mat. Appeal No. 308 of 2022
Bench: Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar
Date: July 29, 2026
