Cruelty Proven Beyond Doubt | Kerala High Court Upholds Divorce Saying A Woman’s Forgiveness Is Strength Not Weakness But Has Its Limits
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha dismissed a matrimonial appeal filed by a husband challenging the grant of divorce to his wife under Section 10(1)(X) of the Divorce Act, 1869. The Court upheld the findings of the Family Court, Malappuram, that the husband had treated his wife with sustained cruelty, both physical and mental. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs. The Court also directed the Registry to anonymise the names and identities of the parties to safeguard their privacy.
The appellant and respondent were married on 29.01.2006 according to Christian rites and had two children from the union. The respondent-wife alleged that she had been consistently subjected to acts of cruelty by the appellant-husband throughout their marriage. A significant incident occurred on 03.12.2012, when she was physically assaulted and required police intervention. This led to the registration of Crime No.179/2012, later taken on file as C.C. No.544/2012 under Sections 498A, 406, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Although the proceedings resulted in the husband’s acquittal, the wife stated that she had withdrawn her allegations to protect his employment.
The respondent claimed that she initially filed for divorce in OP No.999/2013 but withdrew it in the hope of reconciliation. Subsequently, OP No.198/2016 was filed but dismissed for default. She alleged that her withdrawal of these proceedings emboldened the appellant to further instances of abuse. An iron rod assault, documented in Ext.A9 discharge summary, was followed by her decision not to pursue criminal action. However, due to escalating violence, two further criminal cases were registered—Crime No.717/2020 and Crime No.259/2022—invoking Sections 447, 451, 427, 324, and 506 IPC.
The respondent eventually filed OP No.251/2021 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Family Court granted her relief under Section 10(1)(X) of the Divorce Act, 1869. The appellant then challenged this decision in MAT Appeal No. 68 of 2023 before the High Court.
In his defence, the appellant asserted that he had been acquitted in all prior criminal cases and produced Ext.B1—a prescription dated 07.05.2022—claiming he was undergoing treatment for anger management issues. He contended that the evidence on record did not meet the statutory threshold for cruelty under Section 10(1)(X) of the Act.
The Family Court, however, found Ext.B1 to be legally ineffective, noting that the issuing doctor was neither cited as a witness nor examined. It concluded that the subsequent registration of criminal cases following earlier acquittals and dismissals indicated a continuing pattern of cruelty.
During arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was remorseful, wished to reunite with his family, and was particularly concerned about the children’s upbringing. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that prior condonation of violence did not diminish the gravity of the cruelty suffered, especially in light of repeated incidents endangering not only the wife but also the children. He asserted that the documentary and testimonial evidence conclusively demonstrated sustained cruelty.
The respondent examined herself as PW1 and produced 14 exhibits, including Ext.A1 to A14. The appellant testified as RW1 and produced Ext.B1. Both parties’ depositions, along with admitted police records, were reviewed by the Court.
The Court addressed the argument that the appellant was mentally ill, stating, “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… under the provisions of Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).” It recorded, “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.”
On the timeline and pattern of cruelty, the Court observed, “there is little doubt that the instances of assault and cruelty had begun as early as in the year 2012 or so.” It referred to Ext.A3 (Final Report in Crime No.179/2012 under Sections 498A, 406, 506 IPC), Ext.A4 (Final Report in Crime No.1038/2015 under Sections 498A and 506 IPC), and Ext.A5 (OP No.999/2013 for divorce). It noted that all these cases had been registered based on the respondent’s complaints and were admitted by the appellant in his testimony.
Further, the Court stated, “it is further conceded by the appellant… that he is suffering Ext.A2 order of protection in MC No.57/2015 filed by the respondent under… the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.” It also referred to Ext.A11 (Final Report in Crime No.717/2020) and Exts.A12 and A13 (FIR and Final Report in Crime No.259/2022), underscoring the repeated legal interventions due to continued abusive conduct.
Rejecting the appellant’s attempt to leverage past acquittals, the Court stated, “the outcome was to such effect only because the respondent had consciously and voluntarily chosen to speak in his favour.” It recorded, “she wanted to save him, as also his job as a teacher.”
On the question of forgiveness, the Court observed, “a woman will forgive and condone to protect her matrimonial union and family.” It continued, “forgiveness in such sense is not a passive act, but is an active and transformative one… a powerful act of strength, ingrained in her inner power.”
The Court concluded this reasoning with the statement, “but, there is always a limit to what a woman can endure.” It found that the Family Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and had validly found cruelty established under Section 10(1)(X) of the Divorce Act, 1869.
The Court dismissed the appeal without issuing any order as to costs, directing both parties to bear their own expenses. It also instructed the Registry to anonymise the names and identities of the parties to ensure their privacy is maintained.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: John Joseph Vettikad, C. Joseph Johny, Samson Mathew Sam
For the Respondents: K. Rakesh
Case Title: XXX v. XXX
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:34750
Case Number: MAT. Appeal No. 68 of 2023
Bench: Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice M.B. Snehalatha
[Read/Download order]
