Wife's Offer To Resume Cohabitation Can't Defeat Husband's Divorce Plea After Failed Reconciliation Attempts: Kerala High Court

The Division Bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen dismissed a wife's appeal challenging the decree of dissolution of marriage granted to the husband by the Family Court.

The Court observed that though many attempts were made for reconciliation between the husband and wife through mediation, the same failed. The parties even attended counselling by the KeLSA's Family Counselling Centre as directed by the Court.

After perusing the report of the centre, it was noted that the parties were residing in the same house even after the decree of divorce but not as husband and wife. The husband was agreeable to let the appellant reside in the same house but did not want to grant her the legal or emotional status of a wife.

The Court further noted as per the psychological assessment of the appellant, her insistence on continuing the marital relationship was likely a reaction to isolation and lack of familial support.

On re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials available on record, the Bench upheld the Family Court's decision and observed:

“Merely by stating that the appellant was ready and willing to resume cohabitation with the respondent is not sufficient enough to dis-entitle the respondent from getting a decree for dissolution of marriage.”

The parties, who belonged to different religions, fell in love and entered into marriage. Their marriage was conducted as per the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. Before marriage, they had agreed to respect each other's religion and faith.

Years after the marriage, the husband filed a petition before the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage, alleging that the wife has refused to do her duties.

According to him, the wife/appellant began to deviate from her original promise of secular life and used to exhibit unreasonable anger towards him. He further stated that he showed more interest in her religion and began to ignore his emotional needs. It was also stated that the though the wife bore a child, she was not interested in taking care of their son.

The husband further stated that he had to endure harassment from his wife's side of the family and that he was alienated from his relatives. He also said that she alleged him of engaging in sexual intercourse with his own mother.

He stated that he purchased 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments to his wife but never asked for dowry or any financial contribution from her throughout their married life.

The wife sought for restitution of conjugal rights and denied all the allegation in the husband's plea. According to her, she had 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments, which were misappropriated by the husband's wife, and no gold was given to her by the husband.

The wife's stand was that her family was not informed of their marriage and she consent to the same on the husband's promise to look after her throughout her life. She stated that she was the one who had to endure harassment but she was still interest in continuing the marital relationship.

After hearing the parties and examining the evidence, the Family Court passed a decree of dissolution of marriage and dismissed the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Aggrieved, she approached the High Court.

The Court was of the view that merely because the wife states that she is willing to cohabitate with the husband, dissolution of marriage cannot be denied when he is firm in his stand that reunion is not possible.

The Court, thus, dismissed the wife's appeal.

Case No: Mat.Appeal No. 54 of 2014

Case Title: A v. B.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 406

Counsel for the appellant: John Mathew

Counsel for the respondents: T.A. Unnikrishnan

Click to Read/Download Judgment