The Kerala High Court held that under the Divorce Act, a wife who deserted her husband without reasonable cause is not entitled to maintenance, sets aside the past maintenance granted to her, and upheld the orders for return of money, gold ornaments, and maintenance to the minor child.
KERALA: The Kerala High Court decided two connected matrimonial appeals arising from a common judgment of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha. The case involved a husband and wife whose marriage took place in June 2003 according to Christian customs.
Subsequently, dispute arose, and the couple started living separately after the wife returned to her parental home during pregnancy and did not rejoin the husband after childbirth, as examined by the Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar.
The husband approached the Family Court seeking divorce. The wife filed a separate case demanding the return of money and gold ornaments, along with past maintenance for herself and the minor child.
The Family Court granted divorce on the ground of desertion and ordered the husband and his father to return money and gold ornaments. It also awarded past maintenance to the wife and child.
The husband accepted the divorce on the ground of desertion and did not press claims of cruelty or adultery. He also did not oppose maintenance awarded to the child. However, he challenged the order directing payment of maintenance to the wife and the direction to return gold ornaments and money.
Before the High Court, it was not disputed that an amount of ₹3,50,000 was given by the wife’s family at the time of marriage engagement. It was also admitted that the wife wore 44 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage.
The main dispute was whether the gold ornaments were purchased using the money given by the wife’s family and whether 28 sovereigns remained in the custody of the husband and his father.
After examining the evidence, the Court found that the wife and her mother gave consistent testimony that the money was handed over at the time of engagement and that gold ornaments were purchased using that amount.
The Court noted that the husband failed to produce any proof to show that the gold was purchased from his personal funds. The evidence clearly showed that the ornaments were entrusted to the husband’s side for safekeeping after marriage.
The High Court held that merely returning the money was not sufficient and that the husband and his father were responsible for returning the gold ornaments or their value. The direction to return ₹2,00,000 out of the admitted amount was also found to be justified.
The important legal issue considered by the Court was whether a wife who has been found guilty of desertion is entitled to past maintenance. The divorce granted on the ground of desertion had become final since the wife did not challenge it.
The Court examined the meaning of desertion under the Divorce Act, 1869, and quoted the statutory definition:
“desertion”, implies an abandonment against the wish of the person charging it.
The Court explained that even though the Divorce Act does not expressly mention “without reasonable cause,” desertion cannot be interpreted in a rigid or literal manner. Doing so would lead to unfair and unconstitutional results.
The Court held that desertion must be understood in a reasonable and constitutional way, keeping in mind equality and personal dignity.
The Court relied on earlier precedent and referred to the decision in A:Husband v. B:Wife (2010(4) KHC 435), where it was held that matrimonial concepts like cruelty and desertion must carry the same meaning across different personal laws to avoid inequality.
Applying this reasoning, the High Court concluded that once a wife is found to have deserted her husband without reasonable cause, she cannot claim maintenance. The Court emphasized that under Section 37 of the Divorce Act, the conduct of the wife must be considered before awarding alimony.
Since the finding of desertion had become final, the award of past maintenance to the wife was held to be legally incorrect. The High Court therefore set aside the order granting past maintenance to the wife while maintaining maintenance awarded to the child.
In the final outcome, the appeal filed by the husband against the divorce decree was dismissed. The connected appeal was partly allowed, and the order granting past maintenance to the wife was cancelled. All other directions of the Family Court, including return of money and gold ornaments, were upheld.
This judgment clearly reinforces that desertion without justification has legal consequences and that maintenance is not an automatic right when a spouse is found to be at fault.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved
| Law & Section | Purpose / Explanation | How Applied by the Court |
| Divorce Act, 1869 – Section 10 | Provides grounds for dissolution of marriage, including desertion | Divorce was granted on the ground of desertion; allegations of cruelty and adultery were not examined further |
| Divorce Act, 1869 – Section 3(9) | Defines “desertion” | Court held that desertion means abandonment against the wish of the spouse and must be read with reasonableness |
| Divorce Act, 1869 – Section 37 | Empowers court to grant alimony after considering wife’s conduct | Court ruled that a wife who deserted her husband without reasonable cause is not entitled to maintenance |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1) | Defines desertion under Hindu law | Used for comparative interpretation to ensure uniform meaning of “desertion” |
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Section 27 (Explanation) | Clarifies desertion as separation without reasonable cause | Relied upon to avoid discriminatory interpretation across personal laws |
| Constitution of India – Article 14 | Guarantees equality before law | Court held that giving different meanings to desertion under personal laws would violate equality |
| Constitution of India – Article 21 | Protects life, liberty, dignity, and personal autonomy | Court held that punishing justified separation or forcing cohabitation would offend dignity and fairness |
Case Details
- Case Title: Shaji Sebastian v. Julie Joseph, (Connected with Mat. Appeal No. 538 of 2014)
- Court: Kerala High Court at Ernakulam
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sathish Ninan & Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Krishna Kumar
- Date of Judgment: 29 January 2026
- Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:6855
- Counsels:
- For Appellant: Sri. M. P. Ramnath, Sri. P. Rajesh (Kottakkal), Smt. S. Sandhya, and Smt. Uma R. Kamath
- For Respondent: Sri. N. K. Subramanian
Key Takeaways
- A wife who deserts her husband without reasonable cause loses the right to claim maintenance; fault still matters in law.
- Marital laws must be applied equally to men and women, and key terms like desertion cannot be interpreted differently based on personal law.
- Financial claims must be proved with evidence, not assumptions or sympathy; courts rely on facts, admissions, and consistency.
- Rights come with responsibility in marriage, and misuse of matrimonial provisions has direct legal consequences.
- Children’s welfare is protected independently, while unjust financial liability on husbands due to marital misconduct is not permitted.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.