The judges also highlighted that the courtroom should not be treated as a battleground for the egos of warring parties.
The Kerala High Court recently observed that withholding mutual consent to divorce in a failed marriage amounts to cruelty.
A Bench of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas said that since no-fault divorces allow couples to separate in a mutually agreeable way, it is especially cruel to withhold consent for a divorce in an irretrievably broken-down marriage.
The judges also highlighted that the courtroom should not be treated as a battleground for the egos of such parties.
“The court rooms cannot be replaced to allow the parties for a battle for grooming their egos and idiosyncratic behaviour. The Court is established for genuine people who honestly dispute on the cause. If they cannot live together even by sharing residence for more than a decade, it can be presumed that sense is lost on both. The idea of no fault divorce is making the people to realise that there is a sensible way of parting on a mutually agreed terms. Withholding mutual consent in a failed marriage is nothing but cruelty,” the judgment stated.
The Court was considering a case in which a petition for divorce was originally filed in 2011.
The husband moved the petition, but was unsuccessful in getting a divorce decree from the family court, leading to an appeal before the High Court.
The couple had tied the knot in 2002 in a Hindu wedding. They had two children from the wedlock, who had both crossed the age of 18 by the time the case came to the High Court.
The husband moved for divorce after less than a decade of marriage, alleging cruelty on the part of his wife. He alleged that she had misused the money he had given her for constructing a house and that she had an extra-marital relationship with her sister’s husband.
The wife denied all claims of cruelty and continued to dispute the divorce petition.
The High Court noted from the pleadings that there was constant bickering, a lack of mutual respect and detachment, which would make reconciliation between the couple impossible. It also noted that more than a decade had been spent in wrangling for a legal divorce.
In these types of cases, the parties were trying the court rather than the court trying the parties, the judges commented.
The Court also noted that the appellant-husband, who had moved the case in 2011, had now become a senior citizen.
“Many sunsets have re-dawn but life is yet to reset. Attempts for settlement have been failed.”
In such a case, the Court opined that refusing to give consent to divorce when the marriage has broken down irrevocably is cruelty.
The Court, however, clarified that it is not upholding the allegations of cruelty based on any of the pleadings or evidence. With these observations, the Court allowed the appeal and declared the marriage to be dissolved.
While allowing the appeal, the Court also directed the husband to pay ₹10 lakh towards permanent alimony and 10 cents of land to the wife.
