“A Woman Will Forgive & Condone; But There Is Always A Limit": Kerala High Court While Dismissing Husband’s Plea Against Grant Of Divorce
The Court said the Family Court had rightly found that the wife established cruelty under Section 10(1)(X) of the Divorce Act.
Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice M.B. Snehalatha, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal challenging the grant of divorce to his wife, while observing that repeated acts of violence had been established and that the wife’s efforts to preserve the marriage could not erase the cruelty suffered.
A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed, “Forgiveness in such sense is not a passive act, but is an active and transformative one, to heal emotional wounds and to obtain inner peace… For a woman, this is not a sign of her weakness, but a powerful act of strength, ingrained in her inner power.”
The Court added, “But, there is always a limit to what a woman can endure!”
The Appellant was represented by Advocate John Joseph Vettikad, while Advocate K. Rakesh appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The wife, Respondent herein, had filed a petition before the Family Court, seeking divorce under Section 10(1)(X) of the Divorce Act, 1869, from the husband, the Appellant herein. She alleged that she was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty by the Appellant, including an incident in 2012 which required police intervention.
Despite multiple opportunities and reconciliatory efforts by the wife, the husband’s conduct allegedly worsened, leading to the registration of several criminal cases against him.
The husband submitted that he had been acquitted in earlier cases and claimed to suffer from anger management issues, producing a prescription which was not substantiated by any witness.
Reasoning of the Court
Rejecting the husband’s defence of mental illness, the Court observed, “Not only did the appellant offer himself as a witness and depose as RW1; but he did not even choose to impel any such case… This ineluctably establishes that his case of mental illness is one now being projected as a desperate defence, to get over the allegations proved against him.”
Addressing the earlier closure of complaints, the Court noted, “The attempt of the appellant - to take advantage of the dismissal and closure of the earlier Crimes and cases against him – could surely not run to his benefit because… the respondent had consciously and voluntarily chosen to speak in his favour.”
Taking note of the wife’s repeated endurance and her reasons for initially withdrawing charges, the Bench observed, “A woman will forgive and condone to protect her matrimonial union and family… Forgiveness in such sense is not a passive act, but is an active and transformative one, to heal emotional wounds and to obtain inner peace… not a sign of her weakness, but a powerful act of strength…But, there is always a limit to what a woman can endure!”
The Court held that the Family Court had correctly found the ground of cruelty to have been established by the wife under Section 10(1)(X) of the Act and was entitled to a decree for divorce.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:34750)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates John Joseph Vettikad, C. Joseph Johny, Samson Mathew Sam
Respondent: Advocate K. Rakesh
