Summary:
In a matrimonial appeal from a husband challenging a divorce granted on grounds of cruelty, the Kerala High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision. Despite multiple earlier criminal cases resulting in acquittals or being withdrawn, the court still ruled in favor of the wife, citing past incidents and assumptions about the husband’s behavior, including an unproven claim of mental illness.
Brief Facts of the Case
- The couple was married in 2006 and had two children.
- The wife alleged repeated incidents of physical and mental cruelty over the years.
- She had earlier filed multiple complaints and petitions, including cases under IPC 498A, 506, and a Domestic Violence petition.
- Several cases were either withdrawn, not pursued, or resulted in the husband’s acquittal, as the wife had reportedly changed her testimony to protect his job as a school teacher.
- Despite withdrawing complaints multiple times, she eventually filed a divorce petition again in 2021.
Legal Provisions Involved in the Case
- Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 – Cruelty as a ground for divorce
- Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- Sections 498A, 506, 447, 451, 427, 324 IPC – for various allegations made in different FIRs
- Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC – regarding mental incapacity (raised as a defense by the husband)
Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent
Husband (Appellant):
- He argued that previous cases were all withdrawn or ended in acquittal.
- Submitted a medical prescription (Ext. B1) to claim he had “anger management” issues.
- Pleaded for reunion citing concern for the children.
- Claimed the evidence was insufficient to meet the legal standard of cruelty.
Wife (Respondent):
- Claimed she endured repeated violence and emotional suffering.
- Accepted that she withdrew earlier complaints, saying it was done out of hope that he would change.
- Highlighted incidents including an alleged attack with an iron rod and fresh police complaints in 2020 and 2022.
- Denied his claim of mental illness and termed it a last-minute excuse.
Court’s Observations
- The court criticized the husband’s attempt to use a medical prescription without examining the doctor in court.
- It noted that previous withdrawals or acquittals were not proof of innocence, especially since the wife admitted she gave favorable testimony to protect him.
- The court leaned on emotional reasoning, stating that a woman’s forgiveness was “an act of strength,” but that her tolerance had limits.
- It accepted the wife’s version of events, ruling that cruelty was proven despite the lack of live medical or police evidence for each alleged incident.
Conclusion of the Judgment
- The High Court upheld the Family Court’s ruling.
- Divorce was granted on the grounds of cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act.
- The husband’s appeal was dismissed.
- No costs were imposed on either party.
- Court directed that the names of the parties be anonymized to protect their privacy.
Comments from author of this website
This case is yet another example of how a man’s side of the story often holds little weight once allegations are made—regardless of past acquittals or lack of solid proof. Here, multiple criminal cases filed earlier had already ended in acquittal or were withdrawn by the complainant herself. Yet, those very same incidents were later used against him in a civil divorce case, as if those outcomes never mattered.
It’s troubling to see courts treat emotional reasoning as more valid than legal findings. Statements like “she forgave him out of strength” are used to justify setting aside earlier judgments in his favor. When a man gets acquitted in a criminal case, shouldn’t that count as evidence that he did not commit the offence? In this case, it didn’t seem to matter.
Also, using withdrawn or unproven allegations repeatedly, over the years, creates an unfair loop where a man can never truly move forward. Past accusations—no matter how they ended—keep resurfacing. This not only damages his reputation and career but also affects his relationship with his children.
Even the attempt to show mental health struggles was brushed aside, not because it was disproved, but simply because a formality—like producing the doctor as a witness—wasn’t completed. There is no space in the system to consider what the man may have been going through emotionally, mentally, or financially. His intentions, efforts to reconcile, or desire to stay involved in his children’s lives were all overlooked.
The current framework allows one-sided narratives to be treated as truth while the other side is constantly forced to defend itself—even after years of legal battles. That is not justice. It’s endurance under pressure with no real closure. This judgment underlines the urgent need to make the system listen to both sides equally—and to stop treating withdrawn or failed accusations as lasting proof of guilt.
Final Thoughts:
This judgment reflects a one-sided interpretation of cruelty where the man’s version and past acquittals are overlooked. It shows the need for balanced laws and evidence-based decisions, especially when a person’s life, career, and access to children are at stake.
We must keep pushing for gender-neutral laws, stronger safeguards against misuse, and accountability for repeated, unproven allegations. Men, too, deserve fair treatment and a legal system that looks at facts—not just emotions.
Read Complete Judgement Here