Cross appeals and revision arising from dissolution of a brief marriage. The High Court upheld the divorce decree on grounds of cruelty including irretrievable breakdown, affirmed ₹3 lakh permanent alimony with ₹2000 monthly maintenance, and upheld dismissal of the wife's later maintenance claim as duplicative.
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.
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
2025:KER:24728
:-1-:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN &
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 355 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2017 IN OPDIV NO.95 OF 2015 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA
APPELLANT:
MEDONA THOMAS AGED 55 YEARS AGED 55 YEARS, D/O.MERCY THOMAS, MAILATTU, KARIKKATTOOR PO,MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM-686544
BY ADVS. S.JIJI M.M.BABY
RESPONDENT:
BENNY JOHN AGED 56 YEARS
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.YOHANNAN THOMAS, PARAMBIL VADAKKETHIL, PUTHIYAKAVU P.O., MAVELIKKARA-690101
BY ADV SMT.GISA SUSAN THOMAS
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 11.03.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.237/2019, 109/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
2025:KER:24728
:-2-:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN &
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.95 OF 2015 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA
APPELLANT:
BENNY JOHN AGED 57 YEARS S/O YOHANNAN THOMAS, PARAMBIL VADAKKETHIL, PUTHIYAKAVU P.O.MAVELIKKARA-690 101
BY ADV GISA SUSAN THOMAS
RESPONDENT:
MADONNA THOMAS
AGED 56 YEARS D/O MERCY THOMAS, MYLATTU HOUSE, KARIKKATTOR P.O.MANIMALA, PIN 686 544, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. MARIAN G.M.THARAKAN S.JIJI M.M.BABY
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 11.03.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.355/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:24728
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
:-3-:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN &
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 109 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2022 IN MC NO.37 OF 2019 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA
REVISION PETITIONER:
MADONNA THOMAS AGED 60 YEARS D/O MERCY THOMAS, MYLATTU HOUSE, KARIKKATTOOR P.O., MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686544
BY ADVS. S.JIJI M.M.BABY
RESPONDENT:
BENNY JOHN AGED 65 YEARS S/O YOHANNAN, PARAMBIL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, PUTHIYAKAVU P.O., MAVELIKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690101
BY ADVS. GISA SUSAN THOMAS ANJANA G.(K/1607/2018) JOBIN JOSE P.(K/1811/2019)
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 11.03.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.355/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
2025:KER:24728
:-4-:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN &
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 538 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2016 IN OP NO.95 OF 2015 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA
APPELLANT:
MEDONA THOMAS AGED 55 YEARS
D/O MEARCY THOMAS,MAILATTU,KARIKKATTOOR P.O,MANIMALA,KOTTAYAM-686544
BY ADVS. S.JIJI M.M.BABY
RESPONDENT:
BENNY JOHN AGED 56 YEARS S/O YOHANNAN THOMAS,PARAMBIL VADAKKETHIL,PUTHIYAKAVU P.O,MAVELIKKARA-690101
BY ADVS. SMT.REVATHI A.K. SMT.VIDYAJITH M.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 11.03.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.355/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:24728
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
:-5-:
J U D G M E N T
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN,J:
Mat.A.Nos.355 of 2017, 538 of 2019 and RP(FC) No. 109 of 2022 are filed by the wife. Mat.A.No.237 of 2019 is by the husband. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the 'husband' and 'the
wife'.
2025:KER:24728
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
:-6-:
Family Court, dismissing the claim for monthly maintenance from the husband.
The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 03.11.2013. On the first day of marriage, he noticed
abnormal behaviour on the part of the wife. She reacted for silly reasons and withheld the conjugal relation and the wife used to leave the matrimonial house without any notice. On 19.01.2014, the wife deserted the husband and went to her parental home. The husband realised that it was impossible for him to continue to live with the wife in peace. Hence, he approached the Family Court with the prayer for dissolution of marriage.
2025:KER:24728
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
:-7-:
treated her husband with cruelty and was always ready to
discharge her obligations as a wife. Her life was peaceful until 27.11.2013, when she made the discovery of his illicit relationship with another woman. Despite leaving her matrimonial home on 28.11.2013, due to illness, her husband failed to take her back home. On enquiry, she came to know the shocking truth that he had been cohabiting with their maid servant. During December 2013 she went to her matrimonial home, confirmed the above
fact and sent away the maid servant. Thereafter, the husband continued quarrelling with her. On 18.01.2014, the husband demanded her to transfer the property belonging to her, threatened her with a revolver, putting her life in danger. On the subsequent day, the husband left her at the bus stand, after which she went home all alone. She has not deserted the husband and the husband is not entitled to get a decree of divorce.
2025:KER:24728
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
:-8-:
dissolution of marriage between the parties which was solemnised on 03.11.2013.
2025:KER:24728
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
:-9-:
amount of ₹15,000/- per month as monthly maintenance. Since, the family Court had already granted monthly maintenance in I.A No. 568 of 2016, the Family Court dismissed the further claim for monthly maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, the wife has come up in appeal.
2025:KER:24728
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
:-10-:
relationship.
2025:KER:24728
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
:-11-:
the burden of proof lies with the wife to establish that the husband had any such illicit relationship with the maid. On going through the allegations made, corroborated with her evidence as DW1, establish that the wife’s actions caused the husband significant mental pain, agony and suffering, constituting cruelty. The severe mental pain, agony and suffering inflicted by one spouse on the other can render cohabitation impossible and thus destroying the foundation of their marriage. In the present case, the marriage took place on 03.11.2013, and they were living separately from 19.01.2014. The marital life lasted only for a period of 2½ months. There is no case for the parties that after January 2014, there was any cohabitation between the parties. The relationship has become strained and the marital life has come to an end by losing its sweetness and charm. The marriage which has irretrievably broken down spells cruelty to both parties, as each spouse inevitably subjects the other to emotional distress and hardship in such a dysfunctional
2025:KER:24728
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
:-12-:
relationship.
2025:KER:24728
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
:-13-:
O.P No. 95 of 2015, the wife filed I.A. 568 of 2016 for alimony and maintenance. The claim of the wife was that the husband was earning ₹3 lakh per month and he was financially sound. He also had landed property worth ₹10 crore. Thus, she claimed an amount of ₹5 crore as permanent alimony. The husband contended that he had only a small business of electrical spare parts and he is maintaining his two children born to him out of his previous wedlock. The Family Court directed the husband to execute a fixed deposit of ₹3 lakh in the name of the wife and also to pay an amount of ₹2000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner, wife. The wife claimed enhancement of permanent alimony and maintenance.
2025:KER:24728
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
:-14-:
“ 37. Power to order permanent alimony .--
Where a decree of dissolution of the marriage or a decree of judicial separation is obtained by the wife, the District Court may order that the husband shall] to the satisfaction of the court, secure to the wife such gross sum of money, or such annual sum of money for any term not exceeding her own life, as, having regard to her fortune (if any), to the ability of the husband, and to the conduct of the parties, it thinks reasonable; and for that purpose may cause a proper instrument to be executed by all necessary parties.
Power to order monthly or weekly payments. -- In every such case the Court may make an order on the husband for payment to the wife of such monthly or weekly sums for her maintenance and support as the Court may think reasonable:
Provided that if the husband afterwards from any cause becomes unable to make such payments, it shall be lawful for the Court to discharge or modify the order, or temporarily to suspend the same as to the whole or any part of the money so ordered to be paid, and again to revive the same order wholly or in part as to the court seems fit.”
It is true that the above I.A. was filed during the pendency of the divorce petition filed by the husband. The Family Court has granted the relief in the I.A. only after granting dissolution of the marriage. The provision is made for ensuring a stable livelihood for the wife in the future. The claim of the wife for ₹5 crores as permanent alimony is devoid of any merits. After proper appreciation of evidence and the claim put forward, the Family Court
2025:KER:24728
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
:-15-:
granted ₹3 lakh as permanent alimony and an amount of ₹2000/- as monthly maintenance to the wife, which appears to be just and reasonable. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
Accordingly, Mat.A.Nos.355 of 2017, 538 of 2019 and RP(FC) No. 109 of 2022 and Mat.A.No.237 of 2019 are dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE
MBS/
MAT.A.NO.355 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
2025:KER:24728
:-16-:
APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 237/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.1.2017 IN OP NO 95/2015 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, PALA
ANNEXURE A2
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 31.1.2017 IN OP NO 95/2015 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, PALA
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the decree of divorce for cruelty granted by the Family Court should be upheld despite the wife's allegations of the husband's illicit relationship.
Whether the permanent alimony of ₹3 lakh and ₹2000 per month maintenance awarded to the wife was just and maintainable under Section 37 of the Divorce Act.
Whether a further monthly maintenance claim could be entertained when maintenance had already been granted in I.A.No.568/2016.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shri Rakesh Raman Vs Smt. KavitaRelied on¶15
(2023 LiveLaw (SC) 353)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Medona Thomas (Madonna Thomas)
Benny John
Sathish Ninan
Shoba Annamma Eapen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court