Wife’s Demand For Separate Residence Away From Husband's Family Without Sufficient Reason Constitutes Cruelty: Kerala High Court

The Appeal before the High Court was filed by the husband challenging the dismissal of his petition for divorce filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.

The Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar held, “A demand for a separate residence away from the husband's family, without sufficient reason, by itself constitutes an act of cruelty. Although the respondent pleaded that she had been illtreated by the petitioner and his mother, her admission regarding the telephonic conversation with the petitioner's father renders that contention improbable. Thus, the demand for a separate residence was without any valid reason or justification.”

Advocate C. Leena represented the Petitioner while Advocate T.V. Jayakumar Namboodiri represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner and the respondent got married in 2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of the marriage, the petitioner was working in Dubai as an Electrical Engineer. A week after the marriage, the couple went to Dubai and commenced their matrimonial life in a rented residence, where the parents of the petitioner were also residing. In 2016, during the seventh month of her pregnancy, the respondent returned to Kerala and gave birth to a female child.

The petitioner alleged that, despite his repeated requests, the respondent did not return to Dubai. According to him, she informed him that she would return only if he arranged a two-bedroom flat for their residence and that she would not stay with his parents. The petitioner further alleged various incidents to suggest that the conduct of the respondent amounted to extreme cruelty towards him. The Trial Court concluded that the circumstances narrated by the respondent indicated that there was no serious dispute between the spouses and the only grievance raised by the respondent related to the interference caused by her mother-in-law. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition.

Reasoning

The Bench noted the consistent case of the petitioner that the respondent neither answered his phone calls nor responded to his messages and had blocked his number. On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that the petitioner had taken steps to summon the respondent's brother to prove the telephonic conversations. It was submitted during the hearing that, despite service of summons, the brother did not appear before the court.

“Therefore, the petitioner's contention that the respondent did not answer his calls and that he was consequently compelled to contact her brother, who informed him that she would return to Dubai only upon the fulfilment of the twin conditions, appears to be probable”, it stated while holding that the demand for a separate residence was without any valid reason or justification.

The Bench also found that the evidence of the petitioner established that the respondent deserted the petitioner without any justifiable cause. It was further noticed that the parties had been living separately for at least the last nine years. “None of the above aspects was taken note of by the trial court, and it consequently arrived at an erroneous conclusion, which is liable to be set aside”, it added.

Thus, holding that the petitioner was entitled to have his marriage with the respondent dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of matrimonial cruelty, the Bench allowed the appeal. “The marriage between the appellant and the respondent will stand dissolved by a decree of divorce”, it ordered.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:56542)

Click here to read/download Order