2025:KER:27825 Mat. Appeal No.214 of 2017 ..1.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2017 JUDGMENT DATED 25.08.2016 IN OP NO.354 OF 2014 OF FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: SUHAMA KUMARI, AGED 38 YEARS D/O. T.P KRUSHNAN, SOUPARNIKA, KARAYANAD THERU,KOYILANDY NOW RESIDING AT P.K COTTAGE, INFRONT OF TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL,NUT STREET POST, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 502 BY ADVS. SRI.M.G.SREEJITH SRI.ABDUL JALEEL ONATH SRI.ALEX ANTHONY SRI.ASISH MOHAN SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR MALLYA SMT.RONA GEEVARGHESE RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: GIREESH BABU, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, 43 YEARS, KALLUMMAL HOUSE, KURIKKILAD POSTVATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 521 BY ADVS. SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH SMT.LINCY ELEENA SHAJI SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON 02.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27825 Mat. Appeal No.214 of 2017 ..2.. JUDGMENT SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. The appeal is filed by the wife challenging the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court on the petition filed by the husband. 2. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, “husband” and “wife”. 3. The marriage was solemnized on 03.09.2004 and a girl child was born in the wedlock. According to the husband, after the marriage, the wife started harassing him mentally, raising suspicions of his involvement in illicit relationships. Due to the same, the husband had filed a petition for divorce, but that was dismissed. Thereafter, the wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which was allowed; and accordingly, maintenance is being paid. It is alleged that he was not permitted to see his daughter and the wife instructed him not to contact the child. Subsequently driven by suspicion, the wife visited her husband’s workplace and began spreading defamatory rumors about him among the 2025:KER:27825 Mat. Appeal No.214 of 2017 ..3.. employees and kept on alleging scandals about the husband. That led to the husband filing the present petition for divorce. 4. The wife denied all the allegations raised by the husband. She alleged that the husband intended to abandon their marital relationship, to continue his extramarital affairs with other women, and that he was misappropriating his income to support these illicit relationships. The husband neglected the wife and child, instead, was indulging in the company of others. The wife also contended that her accusations were genuine and denied spreading any false or scandalous information. 5. The Family Court, after consideration of the entire issues and the evidence on record, granted a decree of dissolution of marriage between the parties. Challenging this, the wife has come up in appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. 7. According to the husband, after the marriage, the wife was suspicious and was raising several allegations, which 2025:KER:27825 Mat. Appeal No.214 of 2017 ..4.. lowered his self esteem. He found it impossible to live with the wife and he wanted a divorce from her, whereas the wife contended that the husband was having extramarital relationships with other women and was spending all his income for them. The husband, in order to prove his allegations, has given evidence as PW1. He also examined one Soman as PW2 and one Mithra as PW3. The wife did not even care to mount the box. 8. An overall appreciation of the evidence on record reveals that no proper evidence has been adduced by the husband to prove his allegations against the wife. Similarly, though the wife challenged the petition for divorce mainly on ground of alleged extramarital relationships of the husband with other women, no attempt was made from her part to bring out any evidence in support of the same. The Family Court, after considering the materials on board, found that though there are specific contentions regarding the illicit relationship of the husband with other women, not even a single question was put forth by the wife while the husband was cross examined. This reflects the conduct of the wife. 2025:KER:27825 Mat. Appeal No.214 of 2017 ..5.. Raising allegations of illicit relationships against the spouse without proving the same, destroys the foundation of marriage and causes pain, suffering and mental agony to the other spouse, which certainly amounts to cruelty. 9. Refusal to live with the spouse also amounts to cruelty. In Rakesh Raman v. Kavitha [2023 SCC OnLine SC 497], it has been held that though in a given case, cruelty as a fault may not be attributable to one party alone and hence, despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage, keeping the parties together amounts to cruelty on both sides. Similarly, in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [2023 SCC OnLine SC 544], it has been held that where there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage, then, dissolution of marriage is the only solution. In a recent decision of the apex court in Rajib Kumar vs. Sushmita Saha [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727], it has been held that keeping the parties together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides. It is admitted that from 2014 onwards, the parties are living separately and the original petition was filed in 2014. There was no cohabitation after 2014. However, no petition was filed 2025:KER:27825 Mat. Appeal No.214 of 2017 ..6.. by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. We find that the parties are not interested in living together as husband and wife. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to upset the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/-