Kerala High Court Dissolved 38 Yrs Old Marriage, Says Retaining Marriage After Irretrievable Break Down Amounts To Cruelty


The Kerala High Court in the case observed and has reiterated that retaining a marriage that has irretrievably broken down would amount to cruelty to both parties and no meaningful purpose would be served for the same.
The Division bench comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas in the case observed wherein the Apex Court took the decision wherein the court laid down that keeping parties together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides.
In the present case, the 60-year-old appellant, who being the husband of the respondent herein, filed the present appeal on being aggrieved by the dismissal of the plea moved for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Thus, it has been claimed by the appellant that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and the refusal to issue consent for mutual separation ought to be treated as cruelty. It has also been averred by the appellant that he had been neglected by his wife and two children, and that he had not even been invited to the wedding of his son. Adding to it, he stated that the respondent left the matrimonial in 2017 without any reason.
However, the respondent in the case denied the allegations levelled against her, and submitted that minor bickering in the marriage could not be treated as cruelty.
The Family Court in the case found the allegations as not constituting any mental or physical cruelty to grant a decree of divorce.
The Division bench in the case noted that the marriage, now 38 years old, could not be revived. The court also took note that the appellant was living alone.
The Apex Court in the case observed and has also relied upon the decision in the case Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, and Beena M.S v. Shino G. Babu. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.
The counsel, Advocate Prabhu K.N. and Advocate Manumon A. appeared for the Appellant.
The counsel, Advocate Arun Ashok, Advocate Neena James, and Advocate P.P. Sanju represented the respondent.