This matrimonial appeal challenged a decree dissolving the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty. The High Court upheld the lower court's finding that the wife's behavior constituted cruelty, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Appeal dismissed, original decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act affirmed.
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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944 MAT.APPEAL NO. 1064 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.07.2018 IN O.P.NO.646 OF 2013 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
GANGA RANJANAN AGED 51 YEARS, D/O GOVINDAN, SARIGA,CHELORA AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O VARAM, KANNUR-670594.
BY ADVS. K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH SRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
K.P.RANJANAN
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O LATE P.P.KUNHIKANNAN, SARIGA, CHELORA AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O VARAM, KANNUR - 670594.
BY ADV SRI.M.SASINDRAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 25.10.2022, THE COURT ON 03.11.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Mat.Appeal No.1064 of 2018
JUDGMENT
Ajithkumar, J.
This is an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The appellant was the respondent in O.P.No.646 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, Kannur. The respondent filed the original petition for a decree of dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia), (ib) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1965. The O.P. was allowed and marriage between the appellant and respondent was dissolved under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act with effect from 28.07.2018, the date of that judgment. The appellant assails that judgment in this appeal.
divorce alone require mention since the relief claimed by the
3
Mat.Appeal No.1064 of 2018
respondent on other grounds was declined by the Family Court. The marriage was solemnised on 17.02.1991. The appellant and the respondent were residing at the house of the respondent. They have a son. It is alleged that for the last more than 20 years, the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty. His affairs were not looked after by the appellant. She did not oblige to the directions of the respondent and also his wishes. She never was loyal. The appellant did not show any interest in looking after the affairs of the aged mother of the respondent. She went for employment outside the State and abroad, without even informing the respondent. She attributed totally untrue allegations regarding his fidelity. Her temperament was so rude and incoherent, resulting in total incompatibility between them. The marriage has physically and emotionally come to an end.
4
Mat.Appeal No.1064 of 2018
permanent alimony. She later gave up all such reliefs. However, she resisted the claim for divorce. She has stated so many instances, which really made her life miserable. It is her contention that at no point of time the respondent allowed her or her son to live peacefully. He wanted to even abort her pregnancy. Many a time she was physically tortured and manhandled. The respondent is portrayed as a shorttempered man and irresponsible in any of the matters of the appellant or their son, and a man too difficult to be lived along with. A specific instance of assault is pleaded that on 14.10.2014, the respondent kicked with a lever and stabbed using a knife resulting in her injury. She had to file a complaint before the police and, upon which a crime was registered and ultimately the respondent was charged. She has been thus physically and emotionally tortured by the respondent. Accordingly, she contended that it was the respondent who meted out cruelty and that he is not entitled to get a decree of divorce.
5
Mat.Appeal No.1064 of 2018
6
Mat.Appeal No.1064 of 2018
forward with the marriage. So many instances have been stated to by PW1, the respondent, including baseless allegations levelled against him that he had illicit relationship with other women. The version of RW1, the appellant, that she would not have married the respondent, had she known that she had to live in the family house of the respondent along with his mother, sister and other near relatives. She alleged that all such relatives have been depending for the livelihood on the respondent and that was not acceptable to her.
“(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party- xx xx xx
(ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or”
7
Mat.Appeal No.1064 of 2018
SC 1534], the three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court considered as to what standard of proof has to be insisted while appreciating the evidence in support of a plea for dissolution of marriage or for a judicial separation. It was held,-
“25. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof by a higher standard which generally governs criminal trials or trials involving inquiry into issues of a quasi-criminal nature. A criminal trial involves the liberty of the subject which may not be taken away on a mere preponderance of probabilities. If the probabilities are so nicely balanced that a reasonable, not a vacillating, mind cannot find where the preponderance lies, a doubt arises regarding the existence of the fact to be proved and the benefit of such reasonable doubt goes to the accused. It is wrong to import such considerations in trials of a purely civil nature.”
8
Mat.Appeal No.1064 of 2018
Court also explained when can it be said that the fact is proved by preponderance of probabilities as follows:-
“The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he links that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second.”
what is required is to consider whether on a comparative analysis of the evidence let in by the respective parties the
9
Mat.Appeal No.1064 of 2018
allegation of cruelty has been established by preponderance of probabilities.
10
Mat.Appeal No.1064 of 2018
siblings cannot be totally ignored. When the respondent says that such an approach of the appellant was intolerable to him, the same would amount to torture, creating discord in the marital relationship. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Family Court in this respect cannot be said to be incorrect.
Bhate v. Neela Vijayakumar Bhate [(2003) 6 SCC 334]
and Sreenivas Rao K. v. D.A.Deepa [(2013) 5 SCC 226]
11
Mat.Appeal No.1064 of 2018
was relied on by the respondent. It was held that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extramarital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the other spouse. In the light of the evidence that came on record, it cannot be said that the findings of the Family Court in this regard is in any way unfounded or incorrect.
12
Mat.Appeal No.1064 of 2018
as husband and wife, the reason for which is proved to be the cruel treatment to each other, it is appropriate and legal to separate the marriage on the ground of cruelty.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the evidence established cruelty sufficient to grant a decree of dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Whether the First Appellate Court erred in dismissing the family court's decree dissolving the marriage based on cruelty.
Whether the appellant woman treating the respondent with cruelty warrants setting aside the divorce decree.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. DastaneExplained¶46
Dr.N.G.Dastane v. Mrs.S.Dastane [AIR 1975 SC 1534] · Who else cites this
Narendra v. K. MeenaRelied on¶58
Narendra v. K.Meena [(2016) 9 SCC 455] · Who else cites this
Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate v. Neela Vijayakumar BhateRelied on¶63
Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate v. Neela Vijayakumar Bhate [(2003) 6 SCC 334] · Who else cites this
Sreenivas Rao K. v. D.A. DeepaRelied on¶64
Sreenivas Rao K. v. D.A.Deepa [(2013) 5 SCC 226] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ganga Ranjanan
K.P. Ranjanan
Anil K. Narengran
P.G. Ajithkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
