Can a wife’s statement that she is ready to live with her husband prevent him from obtaining a divorce?The Kerala High Court answered this after repeated mediation and counselling efforts failed to reunite the couple.
KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has held that a husband cannot be denied a decree of divorce merely because his wife says that she is ready and willing to resume marital life with him.
The Court observed that such a statement by the wife would not be enough when several attempts to reconcile the couple had already failed and the husband remained firm that reunion was no longer possible.
A Division Bench comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen dismissed an appeal filed by the wife against the judgment of the Family Court granting dissolution of marriage to the husband.
The husband and wife belonged to different religions. They fell in love and married under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. Before their marriage, they had agreed that both would respect each other’s religion and faith.
However, disputes arose between them several years after the marriage. The husband approached the Family Court seeking divorce and alleged that the wife had failed to perform her marital responsibilities.
According to the husband, the wife gradually moved away from their earlier understanding of leading a secular married life. He alleged that she frequently showed unreasonable anger towards him and became increasingly involved in her religion while ignoring his emotional needs.
The husband also alleged that although the couple had a son, the wife was not interested in properly caring for the child.
He further stated that he had faced harassment from the wife’s family and had become separated from his own relatives because of the marital conflict.
One of the serious allegations raised by the husband was that the wife accused him of having a sexual relationship with his own mother. He relied on this conduct to show the level of mental distress and humiliation caused to him during the marriage.
The husband stated that he had purchased 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments for the wife. He claimed that he had never demanded dowry or sought any financial contribution from her during their married life.
The wife denied all the allegations made by the husband. She filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, requesting the Court to direct the husband to resume marital life with her.
According to the wife, she possessed 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments, which were allegedly misappropriated by the husband’s family. She disputed the husband’s claim that he had given her gold ornaments.
The wife also stated that her family had not been informed about the marriage. She claimed that she agreed to marry the husband because he had promised to take care of her throughout her life.
She alleged that she was the person who had suffered harassment during the marriage. Despite the disputes, she maintained that she was still willing to continue the marital relationship.
After hearing both parties and examining the evidence, the Family Court granted divorce to the husband. It also dismissed the wife’s petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
The wife then approached the Kerala High Court and challenged the decree dissolving the marriage.
During the appeal, several efforts were made to reconcile the couple through mediation. However, none of those attempts succeeded.
The High Court also directed the parties to attend counselling before the Family Counselling Centre of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, commonly known as KeLSA.
The counselling process also failed to bring the husband and wife together.
After examining the counselling centre’s report, the Court noted that the parties continued to live in the same house even after the Family Court granted divorce. However, they were not living together as husband and wife.
The husband was willing to allow the wife to remain in the same house. At the same time, he made it clear that he did not want to give her the legal or emotional status of his wife.
The Court also considered the psychological assessment of the wife. The assessment indicated that her insistence on continuing the marriage could be a reaction to her isolation and lack of support from her family.
The Bench re-examined the pleadings, evidence and other materials placed on record. It found no sufficient reason to interfere with the Family Court’s decision.
The High Court observed:
“Merely by stating that the appellant was ready and willing to resume cohabitation with the respondent is not sufficient enough to dis-entitle the respondent from getting a decree for dissolution of marriage.”
The Court made it clear that one spouse cannot preserve a marriage only by expressing willingness to return when the other spouse has consistently stated that the marital relationship cannot be restored.
A statement of willingness to cohabit must be considered along with the actual history of the marriage, the conduct of the parties and the outcome of previous reconciliation efforts.
In this case, repeated mediation and professional counselling had failed. The husband had also clearly refused to resume the legal and emotional relationship of husband and wife.
The Court therefore upheld the Family Court divorce decree and dismissed the wife’s appeal.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTION
| Law / Section | What It Means | Relevance in This Case |
| Section 27, Special Marriage Act, 1954 | This provision permits either spouse to seek dissolution of a marriage solemnised under the Special Marriage Act on legally recognised grounds. | The husband filed O.P. No. 169 of 2012 under Section 27 seeking dissolution of the marriage. The Family Court granted divorce, and the High Court upheld that decree. |
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 | This law governs civil marriages between persons regardless of their religion and provides remedies such as divorce and restitution of conjugal rights. | The husband was Hindu and the wife belonged to a Christian family. Their marriage was registered on 24 July 1991 under the Special Marriage Act. |
| Restitution of Conjugal Rights | This matrimonial remedy allows a spouse to seek restoration of marital cohabitation when the other spouse has withdrawn from the relationship without lawful justification. | The wife filed a counterclaim seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court dismissed it after granting divorce to the husband. The judgment does not specify the particular statutory section invoked for this counterclaim. |
| Decree of Dissolution of Marriage | It is the formal judicial order legally ending a marriage. | The Family Court, Nedumangad, dissolved the marriage through its judgment dated 29 November 2013. The Kerala High Court confirmed that decree. |
| Matrimonial Appeal | It is an appeal challenging a Family Court’s judgment in a matrimonial dispute. | The wife filed Mat. Appeal No. 54 of 2014, challenging both the divorce decree and dismissal of her counterclaim. |
| Mediation and Family Counselling | Courts may refer matrimonial parties to mediation or counselling to explore the possibility of settlement or reunion. | Several reconciliation attempts failed. The High Court also referred the parties to the Family Counselling Centre attached to KeLSA, but counselling did not restore the marriage. |
| Re-appreciation of Evidence | An appellate court may reconsider pleadings, evidence and findings to determine whether the lower court’s decision was legally sustainable. | After reconsidering the pleadings and materials, the High Court fully agreed with the Family Court and found no ground to interfere. |
CASE DETAILS
| Particular | Details |
| Case Title | MT v. KC |
| Court | High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam |
| Case Number | Mat. Appeal No. 54 of 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:KER:54076 |
| Bench | Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen |
| Nature of Appeal | Challenge to the divorce decree and dismissal of the wife’s counterclaim for restitution of conjugal rights |
| Appellant’s Counsel | Shri John Mathew |
| Respondent’s Counsel | Sri T.A. Unnikrishnan |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- A husband is not marital property: A wife’s wish to return cannot override Husband Right to divorce.
- Men’s consent matters too: Marriage and cohabitation cannot be forced.
- Failed reunion cannot mean endless litigation: The husband defended a 2013 divorce until 2026.
- Same house does not mean same marriage: Shelter cannot be treated as marital consent.
- Marriage is not a life sentence: A man cannot be trapped in a dead relationship.
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.