Mat.Appeal Nos.283/2024 & 895/2024

Mat.A Nos.283/2024 & 895/2024 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 1 2025:KER:29653 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA** **FRIDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 283 OF 2024** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2023 IN OP NO.254 OF 2020 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA** **APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **VINU VARGHESE, AGED 30 YEARS S/O VARGHESE, PAPPALIL HOUSE, PARAVOOR MURI, MANNAM NORTH, PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683520 BY ADVS. JOHN JOSEPH ( ROY) JOSEPH FRANCIS(K/000897/2022)** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **DYNA MERRY ANIYAN, AGED 27 YEARS D/O SUJA ANIYAN, SANGEERTHANATHIL, CHOORAKKODU MURIYIL, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 691523** **BY ADVS. MANU RAMACHANDRAN M.KIRANLAL(K/963/2009) T.S.SARATH(K/257/2012) R.RAJESH (VARKALA)(K/78/2000) SAMEER M NAIR(K/000481/2017) SAILAKSHMI MENON(K/1518/2021) JOTHISHA K.A.(K/123/2022) SHIFANA M.(K/000936/2023)** ## **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **2.04.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.895/2024, THE COURT ON 4.4.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 2025:KER:29653 Mat.A Nos.283/2024 & 895/2024 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA** **FRIDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **MAT.APPEAL NO. 895 OF 2024** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(DIV) NO.558 OF 2021 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA** **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **VINU VARGHESE, S/O PAPPALIL YACOB VARGHESE AGED 31 YEARS PAPPALILVEEDU, MANNAM KARA, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST,PIN - 683520 BY ADVS. JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) ANISH VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **DYNA MARRY ANIYAN, W/O VINU AGED 28 YEARS D/O ANIYAN MON PAPPACHAN, CHEPPALLIL, SANKEERTHANAMVEEDU, CHOORAKKODE KARA, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PÄTHANAMTHITTÅ, PIN - 691551 BY ADVS. MANU RAMACHANDRAN M.KIRANLAL(K/963/2009) T.S.SARATH(K/257/2012) R.RAJESH (VARKALA)(K/78/2000) SAMEER M NAIR(K/000481/2017) SAILAKSHMI MENON(K/1518/2021) JOTHISHA K.A.(K/123/2022) SHIFANA M.(K/000936/2023)** **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **2.04.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.283/2024, THE COURT ON 4.4.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 2025:KER:29653 Mat.A Nos.283/2024 & 895/2024 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & M.B.SNEHALATHA, JJ. ------------------------------------------Mat.Appeal Nos.283/2024 & 895/2024 ------------------------------------------Dated, this the 4[th] April, 2025** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **M.B.Snehalatha.J** By this judgment, we are disposing of Mat.Appeal.No. 283/24 preferred by the husband challenging the judgment and decree of divorce granted by the Family Court and Mat.Appeal.No.895/2024 filed by him challenging the judgment and decree declining the relief of restitution of conjugal rights sought by him. 2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are interlinked and intertwined, both these appeals are jointly disposed of for the sake of convenience and to avoid conflict of decisions. 3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred to by their rank in O.P.No.254/2020 as the petitioner and the respondent. 4. The petitioner/wife filed O.P.No.254/2020 seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 stating that her marriage with the respondent/ husband was solemnized on 31.12.2018 as per rites and ceremonies of **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Mat.A Nos.283/2024 & 895/2024 4 2025:KER:29653 Christians; that at the time of marriage, she was working as a Sub Engineer at Techno Park, Thiruvananthapuram and the respondent was doing M S in Mechanical Engineering at United Kingdom of Britain. She contended that at the time of fixing the marriage, the respondent had told her and her family that he has got campus selection in a multi national company and on completion of his studies, he will get work permit in U.K itself so that he can take the petitioner also to U.K in spouse visa and it was by believing the words of the respondent and his family, petitioner and her family agreed for the marriage. At the time of marriage, she was given 55 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of ₹30 lakhs as patrimony. Apart from that, 2 sovereigns of gold ornaments were gifted to respondent and 3 sovereigns of gold ornaments were gifted to his mother. The respondent did not get any campus selection in U.K as represented by him and it was a false story made by him to marry the petitioner. Her further allegation is that respondent/husband, subjected her to cruelty and pressurized her to transfer an amount of ₹20 lakhs which stood in her bank account, to the joint account with him, but she could not oblige to the said demand. Infuriated by the same, respondent ill treated the petitioner and subjected her to cruelty both physically and **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Mat.A Nos.283/2024 & 895/2024 5 2025:KER:29653 mentally. After completing studies though he came back to Kerala, he did not take interest in seeking any job here. Respondent/husband was not affectionate towards the petitioner and he neglected the petitioner, which caused mental harassment to the petitioner. After returning from U.K also, the respondent insisted the petitioner to transfer the amount of ₹20 lakhs to his account and when she resisted the said demand, he manhandled her in the presence of his parents on 22.02.2020. Respondent physically and mentally harassed the petitioner and subjected her to cruelty and due to his cruelty, petitioner returned to her parental home on 22.02.2020 itself. Subsequently, on 01.03.2020, the petitioner along with her parents had reached the house of the respondent to have an amicable settlement of the issues between the couple. But the respondent and his father ill treated the petitioner and her parents and locked them up in a room and the petitioner and her family had to seek the help of Police. Due to the cruelty meted out from the respondent, petitioner does not want to continue her marital relationship with the respondent. Hence, she sought for dissolution of marriage. 5. Respondent/husband filed counter admitting the marriage and denying the allegations of cruelty. He contended that he had **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Mat.A Nos.283/2024 & 895/2024 6 2025:KER:29653 not made any misrepresentation regarding the job as alleged. Respondent did not know how much gold ornaments were given to the petitioner. The allegations of cruelty levelled against the respondent are false and there was no mental or physical harassment, as alleged. Respondent was treating the petitioner with love, care and affection. Petitioner was happily residing with the respondent during the period when they were together. It was only due to the interference of her parents, she has raised the allegations of cruelty. Petitioner and her mother had visited U.K for convocation ceremony of the respondent. When the parents of the petitioner tried to forcibly took her along with them, there was an altercation in respect of the same and accordingly the respondent had to intimate the matter to North Paravur Police Station and the police had summoned both parties. Thereafter the petitioner went with her parents. The allegations of cruelty levelled against the respondent are false. 6. In O.P.No.558/2021 filed by the husband, he sought for restitution of conjugal rights stating that the wife left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason. 7. The wife filed objection stating that she left the company of the husband due to the mental and physical harassment meted out **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 7 2025:KER:29653 Mat.A Nos.283/2024 & 895/2024 by her at the hands of the husband. 8. After trial, the learned Family Court allowed O.P.No.254/2020, filed by the wife and granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and dismissed O.P.No.558/2021 filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. 9. The point for consideration in Mat.A No.283/2024 is whether the judgment and decree in O.P.No.254/2020 granting divorce needs any interference by this Court. 10. Parties are Christians. Admittedly, the marriage was solemnized on 31.12.2018. It is also an admitted fact that at the time of marriage, the wife was working at Techno Park in Thiruvananthapuram and the husband was pursuing his studies in MS in Mechanical Engineering at United Kingdom of Britain. 11. The case of the petitioner/wife is that prior to the fixing of marriage, the husband had misrepresented her family that he has obtained campus selection in a Multi National Company and on completion of his studies, he can secure a work permit in U.K and after marriage, he can take the wife to U.K in a spouse visa. According to the wife, who was examined as PW1, it was a false representation made by the husband; that he had not obtained any campus selection as represented and he had to return to India after **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 8 2025:KER:296532025:KER:29653 Mat.A Nos.283/2024 & 895/2024 8 2025:KER:296532025:KER:29653 his studies. Respondent would admit that he did not get any work visa and he had to return to India after completion of his studies. The case of the wife is that husband demanded to transfer an amount of ₹20 lakhs, which stood in her account to the joint account with him and when she refused to do so, he subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally and totally neglected her and shown disinterest in her. Petitioner has also testified that she was even denied marital bliss on account of her refusal to transfer the patrimony amount into the joint account with the husband. She has also testified that on 22.02.2020, her husband manhandled her in the presence of his parents. The wife has testified that the husband behaved in a cruel manner so as to create an impression that she was totally neglected. 12. Unlike physical abuse which is easier to prove, mental cruelty varies from case to case. Pressurizing a wife to transfer money which stood in her account to the joint bank account is an economic abuse and it amounts to mental cruelty. 13. According to PW1, the respondent/husband persistently pressurized her to transfer ₹20 lakhs which stood in her account into the joint bank account with him and when she refused, he subjected her to verbal abuse, humiliation, mental and physical **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 9 2025:KER:296532025:KER:29653 Mat.A Nos.283/2024 & 895/2024 9 2025:KER:296532025:KER:29653 harassment creating a hostile marital environment. Husband's demand to transfer money and his subsequent ill treatment qualify as economic abuse and it is a form of domestic violence. Financial coercion or economic abuse is a serious violation of marital rights. Courts have to protect women's financial independence and dignity within marriage. 14. The specific case of the wife, who was examined as PW1, is that since she could not oblige to the demand of the husband to transfer the patrimony amount to the joint account with the husband, he treated her with cruelty both mentally and physically. There is no reason to disbelieve her version that there was persistent demand from her husband to transfer an amount of ₹20 lakhs which stood in her account to the joint account with her husband and when she resisted the said demand, respondent mentally and physically harassed her and subjected her to cruelty. 15. In _Anilkumar V.K. v. Sunila.P (2025 (2)KHC 33)_ this Court held as follows: > “15. A behaviour that may be seen as trivial in one marriage might be deeply hurtful in another. Therefore, cruelty is to be assessed on a case - by - case basis. What constitutes cruelty in a matrimonial relationship depends on the unique circumstances, behaviour and experience of the parties involved. Courts do not rely on a rigid definition of cruelty but has to evaluate each case based on its facts. Courts have to analyse whether the conduct makes out unreasonable for the one spouse to live with the other.” 10 2025:KER:29653 Mat.A Nos.283/2024 & 895/2024 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## 16. In _Shoba Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988(1) SCC 105)_ the ## Apex Court held as follows: 5. It will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been marked change in the life around us. In matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, we find a sea change. They are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person. Therefore, when a spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the Court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance. We, the Judges and lawyers, therefore, should not import our own notions of life. We may not go in parallel with them. There may be a generation gap between us and the parties. It would be better if we keep aside our customs and manners. It would be also better if we less depend upon precedents. Because as Lord Denning said in Sheldon v. Sheldon (1966) 2 All ER 257 "the categories of cruelty are not closed." Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful/realm of cruelty. 17. The evidence on record would show that on 01.03.2020, when the wife along with her parents came to the residence of the husband for an amicable talk, there was altercations between them which led to a complaint to the Police and both parties had been summoned to the Police Station. The said incident also irresistibly points to the fact that the parties are at loggerheads and there is no harmony between the spouses. It is in evidence that the parents **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Mat.A Nos.283/2024 & 895/2024 11 2025:KER:29653 of the husband sent Annexures A2 petition to the Catholic Bava of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Denomination and to numerous dioceses falling under the said denomination raising scathing remarks against the parents of the wife and their beliefs. By sending Ext.A2 letters to religious heads, the parents of the respondent attempted to shame, demean, humiliate, insult and to cause emotional distress to the wife and her parents and it constitute mental cruelty. There is incompatibility between the spouses and their families. 18. Forcing incompatible partners to stay together would cause more harm to both parties. The marriage between the spouses is no longer viable. A marriage without compatibility losses its essence and it will lead to emotional stress affecting the well being of both partners. The divorce allows them to pursue a life that aligns with their happiness and personal growth rather than being struck in a relationship that does not fulfill them. 19. Therefore this Court find no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree in O.P.No.254/2020 of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta granting divorce. Mat.A No.895/2024 20. In Mat.Appeal.No.283/2024, we have already rendered a **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Mat.A Nos.283/2024 & 895/2024 12 2025:KER:29653 finding that the wife left the company of the husband due to the cruelty meted out at the hands of the husband and she is entitled to get a decree of divorce. Therefore, the husband who is the appellant in Mat.A No.895/2024 and the petitioner in O.P.No.558/2021 is not entitled to get a decree for restitution conjugal rights and we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Family Court dismissing O.P.No.558/2021. In the result, Mat.A.Nos.283/2024 and 895/2024 stands dismissed. Parties shall suffer their respective costs in both the appeals. Sd/- **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **M.B. SNEHALATHA, JUDGE** Mms