The judgment was given by Justice Sophy and Justice A. Muhammed Mustaque Thomas in a matrimonial appeal filed by a husband seeking divorce.

The Kerala High Court expressed concerns that the consumerist culture of ‘use and throw’ has affected matrimonial relationships.

The husband had filed an OP (Divorce) before the Family Court, at Alappuzha, on the ground of matrimonial cruelty. The couple who had married as per Christian rites, and had three daughters, were living in Saudi Arabia. It was submitted by the petitioner husband, that his wife developed some behavioural abnormalities and picked up quarrels with him alleging that he had illicit relationship with other women. It was alleged by him that due to such abusive and violent behaviour of the respondent-wife, he became mentally stressed and physically ill, and hence, filed the petition for divorce.

The respondent wife however contended that the appellant was merely concocting reasons to keep himself away, and that she never displayed any cruelty, nor had she ever physically assaulted or threatened him, as per his allegations.

The court observed, “When the wife had reasonable grounds to suspect the chastity or fidelity of her husband, and if she questions him, or expresses her deep pain and sorrow before him, it cannot be termed as a behavioural abnormality, as it is the natural human conduct of a normal wife. The normal human reactions or responses from a wife, on knowing that her husband was having illicit connection with another lady, cannot be termed as behavioural abnormality or cruelty from the part of the wife, so as to dissolve their marriage”.

It was relying upon the testimonies of the witnesses produced, including the mother of the appellant, that the court arrived at its observation.
It was also observed by the Court that in order to amount to ‘cruelty’ to amount to ground of divorce under Section 10 (1)(X) of the Divorce Act, the appellant would have to establish that since the solemnisation of the marriage, the respondent has treated him with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent.

“Mere quarrels, ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial relationships or casual outburst of some emotional feelings cannot be treated as cruelties warranting a divorce”, it was observed.

Emphasizing upon the younger generations’ views on marriage, the Court noted that,

“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”.

In this light the court observed that in the instant case, the factual situation clearly showed that the appellant had developed an ‘unholy alliance’ with another lady, which caused disturbances in their family life, and hence, no such matrimonial cruelty, as 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. In such circumstances, the Court did not find cause to interfere with the finding of the Family Court, Alappuzha that the appellant was not entitled to decree of divorce on the ground of matrimonial cruelty, and the appeal, was thus, dismissed.