It is most concerning to note that none other than the most distinguished Kerala High Court has itself in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled xxxx v. xxxx in Mat. Appeal No. 456 of 2020 and cited in 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 463 that was pronounced as recently as on August 24, 2022 has expressed its serious concerns that the consumerist culture of ‘use and throw’ has affected matrimonial relationships. The Court minced just no words to lament that the younger generation is seeing marriage as an evil, which has to be avoided to enjoy free life and that live-in relationships are on the rise. This judgment was delivered in a matrimonial appeal that was filed by a husband seeking divorce.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mrs Justice Sophy Thomas for a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and herself sets the pitch in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
A husband, who lost his case for divorce, is before us.
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench then envisages in para 2 that, Brief facts necessary for the appeal could be stated as follows:- The husband filed OP (Div) No.620 of 2018 before the Family Court, Alappuzha, under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, for dissolving his marriage with the respondent, on the ground of matrimonial cruelties. He married the respondent on 09.02.2009 as per Christian rites and custom and three girl children were born in their lawful wedlock. Both of them were employed in Saudi Arabia, and their marital relationship was very smooth. But later, she developed some behavioral abnormalities, and she picked up quarrel with him for no reason, alleging illicit relationship with other women. She failed to perform her duties and responsibilities as a wife and mother. On 14.05.2018, she slapped on his face and on 16.05.2018 she pointed a knife at him and threatened him with death. He was assaulted and humiliated in front of his children and public, and she made his close-relatives to turn against him. She compelled him to transfer the properties purchased by him into her name. Because of the indifferent, abusive and violent behavior of the respondent, he became mentally stressed and physically ill. According to him, their marital relationship was irretrievably broken and so he wanted a decree of divorce.
Needless to say, the Division Bench then states in para 3 that:
The respondent-wife vehemently opposed his petition. According to her, the appellant was concocting reasons to keep himself away from his wife and children. She was never cruel to the husband and she never assaulted or threatened him. The appellant had no financial discipline and the respondent herself purchased properties and constructed the house. She needs her husband, and her children, their father.
As it turned out, the Division Bench then discloses in para 4 that:
After formulating necessary issues by the Family Court, the parties went on trial. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 & A2 were marked from the side of the appellant. RWs1 to 7 were examined and Exts. B1 to B7 were marked from the side of the respondent. The Family Court, on analysing the facts and evidence, found that the appellant failed to prove the allegations of cruelty against the respondent so as to dissolve their marriage, and hence the OP was dismissed, against which, the appellant has come up with this appeal.
Most forthrightly, the Division Bench propounded in para 12 that:
Courts cannot come to the aid of an erring person to legalise his activities, which are per se illegal. If the husband having unholy alliance with another woman wants to avoid his lawfully wedded wife and his three little children, he cannot seek the assistance of a court of law to get his present relationship legalised by dissolving his lawful marriage, without any valid reasons for the same.
Most commendably, the Division Bench then underscores in para 17 that:
From time immemorial marriage was considered as solemn, and sanctity attached to the relationship of a man and wife united in marriage was considered inseparable, and it was the very foundation of a strong society. Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union, or legal contract between spouses, that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. Family is the basic unit of the society, from where we learn virtues, values, skills and behaviour. Marriage is not a mere ritual or an empty ceremony for licencing the sexual urge of the parties. Marriage is the union of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at, the sacrifices to, heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain. -Confucius.
Most significantly, the Division Bench minces no words to expound in para 18 that:
Kerala, known as God’s own Country, was once famous for its well knit family bondage. But the present trend it seems to break the nuptial tie on flimsy or selfish reasons, or for extra-marital relationships, even unmindful of their children. The wails and screams coming out of disturbed and destroyed families are liable to shake the conscience of the society as a whole. When warring couples, deserted children and desperate divorcees occupy the majority of our population, no doubt it will adversely affect the tranquility of our social life, and our society will have a stunted growth. Now-a-days, the younger generation think that marriage is an evil that could be avoided to enjoy free life without any liabilities or obligations. They would expand the word ‘WIFE’ as ‘Worry Invited For Ever’ substituting the old concept of ‘Wise Investment For Ever’. The consumer culture of ‘use and throw’ seems to have influenced our matrimonial relationships also. Live-in-relationships are on the rise, just to say good-bye when they fell apart.
To be sure, the Division Bench then mandates in para 19 that:
The law and religion consider marriage as an institution by itself and parties to the marriage are not permitted to walk away from that relationship unilaterally, unless and until they satisfy the legal requirements to dissolve their marriage through a court of law or in accordance with the personal law which govern them.
As things stand, the Division Bench then points out in para 20 that:
Mere quarrels, ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial relationships or casual outburst of some emotional feelings cannot be treated as cruelties warranting a divorce. From the facts of the case on hand, it is obvious that the unholy alliance of the husband with some other lady has caused some disturbances in the family life of the appellant and respondent, which they were sailing smoothly with their three girl children. Even according to the mother and close-relatives of the appellant, such an unholy relationship was started in the year 2017, and in the year 2018 itself, the husband moved for divorce. The parties are living separately from 2018 onwards. Even now, the respondent is ready for a reunion as she wants her husband, and her children their father. Learned counsel Sri.Mathew Kuriakose for the appellant submitted that it is only a drama played by the respondent as she is also aware of the fact that their relationship is emotionally dead due to long separation. The respondent was never separated from the appellant because of any fault from her part. Still she is living with the mother of the appellant, whenever she comes down from Saudi Arabia. It was the appellant who walked out of their marital relationship, and now he says that due to long separation, their marriage has become defunct.
Finally and far most significantly, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 21 that:
Since, no act of cruelties, able to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the appellant that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent was proved by the appellant, he is not entitled to get a decree of divorce on the ground of matrimonial cruelties. RWs 2 to 7 categorically deposed before the Court that the appellant and respondent were leading a happy married life, and they still want to see them live together along with their children. If the appellant is ready to come back to his wife and children, they are ready to accept him, and there is nothing to show that the chances of an amicable reunion is foreclosed forever. So the finding of the Family Court, Alappuzha, that the appellant is not entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of matrimonial cruelties is liable to be upheld. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
In sum, we thus see that the Kerala High Court has very rightly expressed its grave concern on the condemnable manner in which youngsters are following the consumer culture of use and throw even in matrimonial relationships also which definitely cannot be justified under any circumstances. The Court rightly pointed out that when warring couples, deserted children and desperate divorcees occupy the majority of our population, no doubt it will adversely affect the tranquility of our social life and our society will have a stunted growth. The Kerala High Court thus very rightly rejected the appeal of appellant for decree of divorce for reasons as stated hereinabove!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh