Full Judgment
:-1-:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 355 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2017 IN OPDIV NO.95 OF 2015
OF FAMILY COURT, PALA APPELLANT: MEDONA THOMAS AGED 55 YEARS AGED 55 YEARS, D/O.MERCY THOMAS, MAILATTU, KARIKKATTOOR PO,MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM-686544 BY ADVS. S.JIJI M.M.BABY RESPONDENT: BENNY JOHN AGED 56 YEARS AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.YOHANNAN THOMAS, PARAMBIL VADAKKETHIL, PUTHIYAKAVU P.O., MAVELIKKARA-690101 BY ADV SMT.GISA SUSAN THOMAS THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 11.03.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.237/2019, 109/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :-2-:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.95 OF 2015 OF FAMILY
COURT, PALA APPELLANT: BENNY JOHN AGED 57 YEARS S/O YOHANNAN THOMAS, PARAMBIL VADAKKETHIL, PUTHIYAKAVU P.O.MAVELIKKARA-690 101 BY ADV GISA SUSAN THOMAS RESPONDENT: MADONNA THOMAS AGED 56 YEARS D/O MERCY THOMAS, MYLATTU HOUSE, KARIKKATTOR P.O.MANIMALA, PIN 686 544, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MARIAN G.M.THARAKAN S.JIJI M.M.BABY THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 11.03.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.355/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :-3-:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 109 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2022 IN MC NO.37 OF 2019 OF
FAMILY COURT, PALA REVISION PETITIONER: MADONNA THOMAS AGED 60 YEARS D/O MERCY THOMAS, MYLATTU HOUSE, KARIKKATTOOR P.O., MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - BY ADVS. S.JIJI M.M.BABY RESPONDENT: BENNY JOHN AGED 65 YEARS S/O YOHANNAN, PARAMBIL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, PUTHIYAKAVU P.O., MAVELIKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690101 BY ADVS. GISA SUSAN THOMAS ANJANA G.(K/1607/2018) JOBIN JOSE P.(K/1811/2019) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 11.03.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.355/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :-4-:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 538 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2016 IN OP NO.95 OF 2015 OF
FAMILY COURT, PALA APPELLANT: MEDONA THOMAS AGED 55 YEARS D/O MEARCY THOMAS,MAILATTU,KARIKKATTOOR P.O,MANIMALA,KOTTAYAM-686544 BY ADVS. S.JIJI M.M.BABY RESPONDENT: BENNY JOHN AGED 56 YEARS S/O YOHANNAN THOMAS,PARAMBIL VADAKKETHIL,PUTHIYAKAVU P.O,MAVELIKKARA-690101 BY ADVS. SMT.REVATHI A.K. SMT.VIDYAJITH M. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 11.03.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.355/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :-5-:
J U D G M E N T
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN,J: Mat.A.Nos.355 of 2017, 538 of 2019 and RP(FC) No. 109 of 2022 are filed by the wife. Mat.A.No.237 of 2019 is by the husband. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the 'husband' and 'the wife'.
2. Mat.A.No. 355 of 2017 is filed by the wife challenging the judgment and decree of divorce granted by the Family Court in O.P(Div). No.95/2015 filed by the husband.
3. Mat.A.No. 538 of 2019 was filed by the wife
challenging the order in I.A.No.568/2016 in O.P(Div) No.95/2015 passed by the Family Court awarding permanent alimony of Rupees three lakh against the claim of Rupees five crores.
4. RP(FC) No. 109 of 2022 was filed by the wife challenging the order in M.C.No.37 of 2019 passed by the :-6-: Family Court, dismissing the claim for monthly maintenance from the husband.
5. The husband has filed Mat.A.No. 237 of 2019 challenging the order dated 31.01.2016 in I.A.No.568/2016 awarding permanent alimony of Rupees three lakhs to the wife.
6. The husband’s case in brief is as follows:-
The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 03.11.2013. On the first day of marriage, he noticed abnormal behaviour on the part of the wife. She reacted for silly reasons and withheld the conjugal relation and the wife used to leave the matrimonial house without any notice. On 19.01.2014, the wife deserted the husband and went to her parental home. The husband realised that it was impossible for him to continue to live with the wife in peace. Hence, he approached the Family Court with the prayer for dissolution of marriage.
7. According to the wife, she always loved the husband, but he treated her with cruelty. She never :-7-:
treated her husband with cruelty and was always ready to discharge her obligations as a wife. Her life was peaceful until 27.11.2013, when she made the discovery of his illicit relationship with another woman. Despite leaving her matrimonial home on 28.11.2013, due to illness, her husband failed to take her back home. On enquiry, she came to know the shocking truth that he had been cohabiting with their maid servant. During December 2013 she went to her matrimonial home, confirmed the above fact and sent away the maid servant. Thereafter, the husband continued quarrelling with her. On 18.01.2014, the husband demanded her to transfer the property belonging to her, threatened her with a revolver, putting her life in danger. On the subsequent day, the husband left her at the bus stand, after which she went home all alone. She has not deserted the husband and the husband is not entitled to get a decree of divorce.
8. The Family Court, on appreciation of evidence and after an elaborate consideration of the issue, granted :-8-: dissolution of marriage between the parties which was solemnised on 03.11.2013.
9. The wife filed I.A. No. 568 of 2016 in O.P.(Div)
No. 95 of 2015 claiming permanent alimony and maintenance. She claimed that the husband is earning an amount of ₹3,00,000/- per month and also has landed property worth ₹10 crore and demanded ₹5 crore as permanent alimony for her livelihood. However, the husband contended that he had only a small business and had the added responsibility of supporting two children from his previous marriage. Also contended that he had no landed property. The Family Court, allowed the application, directing the husband to execute a fixed deposit of ₹3 Lakh in the name of the wife and also directed to pay ₹2000/- per month as maintenance to the wife with effect from January 2017. Challenging the same, the wife as well as the husband have come up in appeal.
10. After passing of the orders in O.P(Div) No. 95 of 2015, the wife filed MC No. 37 of 2019 claiming an :-9-:
amount of ₹15,000/- per month as monthly maintenance. Since, the family Court had already granted monthly maintenance in I.A No. 568 of 2016, the Family Court dismissed the further claim for monthly maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, the wife has come up in appeal.
11. We have heard Sri.S.Jiji, the learned counsel appearing for the wife and Smt. Gisa Susan Thomas learned counsel appearing for the husband.
12. First, we shall consider the appeal
(Mat.A.No.355/2017) filed against the judgment and decree of divorce granted by the Family Court. According to the wife, she was subjected to cruelty and alleged that her husband was having an illicit relationship with Maniamma, a housemaid and after discovering the illicit relationship, the husband started torturing the wife. She further alleged that the extramarital relationship of the husband was tortuous for her. She has consistently maintained her affection for the husband, and denies having ever treated him with cruelty at any point in their :-10-:
relationship.
13. Per contra, the husband alleged that from the
very first day of their marriage, the husband observed unusual behaviour on the part of the wife and she withheld the conjugal relations. He also alleged that the wife repeatedly left the matrimonial home without notice, and ultimately deserted him and lived with her parents.
14. On going through the evidence, it is seen that
other than the allegation by the wife, no evidence has been adduced to prove the illicit relationship of the husband with the housemaid. A complaint was filed by the wife before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kanjirappally under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, which is produced as Ext. B7. In the said complaint also, it is alleged that the husband was having illicit relationship with the housemaid, Maniamma and that she was subjected to cruelty by the husband. Unsubstantiated allegations of illicit relationships, can cause significant distress to the accused spouse. In this case :-11-:
the burden of proof lies with the wife to establish that the husband had any such illicit relationship with the maid. On going through the allegations made, corroborated with her evidence as DW1, establish that the wife’s actions caused the husband significant mental pain, agony and suffering, constituting cruelty. The severe mental pain, agony and suffering inflicted by one spouse on the other can render cohabitation impossible and thus destroying the foundation of their marriage. In the present case, the marriage took place on 03.11.2013, and they were living separately from 19.01.2014. The marital life lasted only for a period of 2½ months. There is no case for the parties that after January 2014, there was any cohabitation between the parties. The relationship has become strained and the marital life has come to an end by losing its sweetness and charm. The marriage which has irretrievably broken down spells cruelty to both parties, as each spouse inevitably subjects the other to emotional distress and hardship in such a dysfunctional :-12-:
relationship.
15. In Shri Rakesh Raman Vs Smt. Kavita (2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 353), the apex court has held that irretrievable
breakdown of marriage can be read as "cruelty" - a marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the sides. It was also held that to keep the façade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. It was also held that long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the 1955 Act.
16. We find that the Family Court has rightly granted the decree for dissolution of marriage between the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
17. Next, we shall consider the claim for alimony and maintenance (MatA.No.538 of 2019). During the pendency of :-13-:
O.P No. 95 of 2015, the wife filed I.A. 568 of 2016 for alimony and maintenance. The claim of the wife was that the husband was earning ₹3 lakh per month and he was financially sound. He also had landed property worth ₹10 crore. Thus, she claimed an amount of ₹5 crore as permanent alimony. The husband contended that he had only a small business of electrical spare parts and he is maintaining his two children born to him out of his previous wedlock. The Family Court directed the husband to execute a fixed deposit of ₹3 lakh in the name of the wife and also to pay an amount of ₹2000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner, wife. The wife claimed enhancement of permanent alimony and maintenance.
18. The husband challenged the above direction by
filing Mat.A.No.237 of 2019. The main contention raised by the husband is that an interlocutory application under section 37 of the Divorce Act cannot be maintained in a divorce petition filed by the husband. Section 37 of the Divorce Act, 1869 reads as follows : :-14-:
“37. Power to order permanent alimony.-- Where a decree of dissolution of the marriage or a decree of judicial separation is obtained by the wife, the District Court may order that the husband shall] to the satisfaction of the court, secure to the wife such gross sum of money, or such annual sum of money for any term not exceeding her own life, as, having regard to her fortune (if any), to the ability of the husband, and to the conduct of the parties, it thinks reasonable; and for that purpose may cause a proper instrument to be executed by all necessary parties. Power to order monthly or weekly payments.-- In every such case the Court may make an order on the husband for payment to the wife of such monthly or weekly sums for her maintenance and support as the Court may think reasonable: Provided that if the husband afterwards from any cause becomes unable to make such payments, it shall be lawful for the Court to discharge or modify the order, or temporarily to suspend the same as to the whole or any part of the money so ordered to be paid, and again to revive the same order wholly or in part as to the court seems fit.”
It is true that the above I.A. was filed during the pendency of the divorce petition filed by the husband. The Family Court has granted the relief in the I.A. only after granting dissolution of the marriage. The provision is made for ensuring a stable livelihood for the wife in the future. The claim of the wife for ₹5 crores as permanent alimony is devoid of any merits. After proper appreciation of evidence and the claim put forward, the Family Court
:-15-: granted ₹3 lakh as permanent alimony and an amount of ₹2000/- as monthly maintenance to the wife, which appears to be just and reasonable. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
19. Though the wife has filed a revision
petition(RP(FC) No.109 of 2022) against the dismissal of the maintenance case as MC No. 37 of 2019, we find that since the wife was already granted maintenance in I.A. No. 568 of 2016, the Family Court has rightly dismissed the petition holding that the maintenance of the wife was already decided and allowed. We are not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, Mat.A.Nos.355 of 2017, 538 of 2019 and RP(FC) No. 109 of 2022 and Mat.A.No.237 of 2019 are dismissed. Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE MBS/ :-16-: APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 237/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.1.2017 IN OP NO 95/2015 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, PALA ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 31.1.2017 IN OP NO 95/2015 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, PALA