RESOLVING THE LEDGER
This is one outlet's own report from The Times of India — the article as it was filed. Other outlets are covering the same event; open the full story to compare every source side by side.
See the full story · 1 sourcesNEW DELHI: The Kerala high court, in its July 22 order, upheld a family court's decision granting divorce to a man, holding that a husband cannot be denied divorce just because his wife expresses willingness to resume cohabitation. The court observed that although the wife was ready to continue the marriage, repeated attempts at reconciliation had failed and the marital relationship had broken down over the years, making it impossible to compel the husband to continue the marriage.What was the dispute aboutThe couple married under the Special Marriage Act in 1991 after falling in love while working at the government secretariat in Thiruvananthapuram. The husband later approached the family court and sought divorce on the ground of cruelty, according to the court order.The husband alleged that his wife frequently abused him and his mother and made several false accusations against him over the years. According to him, she became increasingly aggressive, neglected her responsibilities towards the family and repeatedly humiliated him before relatives and strangers. He further alleged that she made baseless allegations regarding his relationship with his mother, causing him severe mental cruelty.The husband also claimed that "slowly the respondent/wife began to exhibit maladjusted behaviour and deviation from her original thought of secular life."However, the wife denied all the allegations and claimed that she had, in fact, suffered harassment from husband's mother. She claimed that she had always been interested in preserving the marriage and also asked the court to direct her husband to resume marital life with her.The family court granted the husband a decree of divorce in 2013 and dismissed the wife's counterclaim. She then challenged the decision before the Kerala high court.Why did the high court uphold the divorce?The bench comprising Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen noted that during the pendency of the appeal, it made several attempts to reconcile the couple through mediation and counselling.A psychological assessment placed before the court revealed that despite the divorce decree, the husband and wife had continued to live in the same house since 2013, though not as husband and wife."The respondent/husband explained that they share the home because the appellant/wife has no ties to other relatives and their son lives abroad; even their long standing acquaintance, he saw no issues in sharing the residence and he also stated that he has no objection in his wife residing in his house till his death," the court order reads.The assessment also noted that the wife's insistence on resuming married life appeared to stem from her isolation and lack of family support, particularly as their son lived abroad and she shared a weak emotional bond with him.After re-examining the evidence, the high court agreed with the family court that the husband had established grounds for divorce."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 bench noted.Finding no reason to interfere with the family court's judgment, the high court dismissed the wife's appeal and confirmed the decree dissolving the marriage.
AIPROPX is an independent multi-source news index — we track, compare, and connect coverage from across the web into one place you won't find anywhere else.