The High Court allowed the husband’s appeal against the Family Court’s dismissal of a divorce petition alleging cruelty. The Court set aside the lower judgment, finding that the wife’s conduct, false complaints, and humiliation constituted mental cruelty warranting a divorce.
A decree of divorce is granted to the appellant from the date of the decree.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1940
Mat.Appeal.No. 360 of 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06-03-2013 IN OPNO.134/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER
V.V.PRABHAKARAN S/O. KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, CHALIL, “LAKSHMIPRABHA”, ELAYAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. MUNDAYAD, KANNUR - 670 597.
BY SRI. V.V.PRABHAKARAN (PARTY-IN-PERSON)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
T.CHANDRAMATHI D/O.LATE T.K.G. NAMBIAR, THEENDAKKARA HOUSE, KANNAPURAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O. MOTTAMMAL, KANNUR - 670 331.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.6.2018, THE COURT ON 01-08-2018, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.M.SHAFFIQUE & P. SOMARAJAN, JJ.
Mat. Appeal No. 360 of 2013
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2018
J U D G M E N T
P. Somarajan, J.
Against the order dated 06.03.2013 in O.P.No.134/2006 of the Family Court, Kannur, the husband came up with this appeal aggrieved by the order refusing to grant divorce of the marriage.
Mat. Appeal No. 360 of 2013 2
ground alleged for divorce with its all details so as to find out the existence of elements of cruelty and whether it is sufficient to bring the relationship to an end. The petitioner had given oral evidence as PW1. PW2 to PW14 were examined in support of his case besides the marking of Exhibits A1 to A38. All these persons were examined along with the relevant documents in order to show the misbehaviour of the respondent towards her husband, the petitioner herein, and that he was subjected to continuous mental cruelty challenging his dignity among his friends, relatives, subordinate officers and higher officials. There is no much dispute that the husband/petitioner is living separately from the respondent/wife right from the year 1995. The wife is aged 60 and the petitioner is aged 70 years. There are four issues in the wedlock. They were living as husband and wife for a long period of more than 22 years. It is an admitted case of the respondent that she had preferred a complaint against her husband alleging offence under Section 498A IPC, that too in the year 2003, and a crime was registered as Crime No.379/2003 of Kannapuram Police Station. Subsequently the case was, according to the respondent,
Mat. Appeal No. 360 of 2013 3
settled out of court and herself and her children had given evidence hostile to the prosecution. This would be a factor requires serious consideration as to why they have turned hostile to the criminal case initiated at their instance and whether it was a pressurizing tactics played on the petitioner who was aged more than 70 years. The intention to subject the petitioner with mental cruelty is well evident.
Mat. Appeal No. 360 of 2013 4
allegations made against him would prima facie show the way in which he was treated by his wife, the respondent herein. Scandalous allegations were raised against him in Exhibit A30 complaint submitted to the superior officer of the petitioner. The nature of scandalous allegations raised in Exhibit A30 which was submitted to the senior officer of the petitioner would amply show the cruelty and misbehaviour showered on the petitioner by his wife, the respondent. Exhibit A28 apology letter would be an admission of what she had done against her husband, the petitioner herein. Exhibits A24 and A25 would also show the misbehaviour and cruelty unleashed against the petitioner by the respondent.
Mat. Appeal No. 360 of 2013 5
Section 498A IPC and registration of a crime against him and the admission made by her that she herself and her children turned hostile to the prosecution resulting in acquittal of the petitioner would prima facie show the way in which he was subjected to cruelty challenging his dignity. The pain and suffering meted out by the petitioner on registration of a crime against him by the concerned police can very well discern from the fact that it was registered while he was at the age of 70 years. He was not permitted to participate in the marriage of his one and the only daughter, PW7. He has been ridiculed before his officials, friends and relatives is well evident from the various complaints and letters issued at various occasions. The extent of cruelty is well evident from the nature of wild allegations levelled against him in those complaints and letters. As discussed earlier, ridiculing the husband before his friends, officials and relatives and challenging his dignity by his wife amounts to mental cruelty having far reaching effects. This cannot be condoned on a later point of time as it will remain in the mind of the petitioner as an incurable injury. The way in which he was treated and ridiculed is further evident from the fact that a publication was made regarding
Mat. Appeal No. 360 of 2013 6
the marriage of her daughter under Exhibit A10 notice which is yet another attempt to degrade the dignity of her father who was excluded from attending the marriage of his one and the only daughter. The reasons advanced by the Lower Court even by quoting a Sanskrit sloga alleged to have been borrowed from the petitioner that “wife should be minister in purpose, slave in duty, Lakshmi in appearance, Earth in patience, Mother in love and prostitute in bed” would itself show the manner in which the Lower Court misappreciated the evidence involved in the case. Submission of a compromise signed by the parties, exhibited as A32, regarding the crime registered against the petitioner will not condone the earlier act of the respondent causing registration of a criminal case under the guise of an alleged offence under Section 498A IPC against her husband who was at the age of 70 years. The cruelty meted out by the petitioner is of that nature sufficient to bring their relationship as husband and wife in an irretrievable halt and hence the petitioner is entitled to the grant of a decree of divorce of the marriage with the respondent. Hence, the judgment of the Lower Court is hereby set aside. A decree of divorce of marriage of the
Mat. Appeal No. 360 of 2013 7
petitioner with the respondent with effect from the date of
decree is hereby granted.
Appeal is allowed accordingly, no costs.
sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE (JUDGE)
sd/P. SOMARAJAN (JUDGE)
DMR/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the mental cruelty alleged by the petitioner, including filing of false false complaints and humiliation, is sufficient to grant a decree of divorce.
Whether the exclusion of the petitioner from daughter’s wedding and ridiculing him at work amounts to an incurable injury justifying divorce.
V.V. PRABHAKARAN
T. CHANDRAMATHI
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
