A husband cannot be compelled to remain in a marriage simply because his wife wants to resume cohabitation, the Kerala High Court has ruled while upholding a family court’s decision granting him divorce.
A husband cannot be compelled to remain in a marriage simply because his wife wants to resume cohabitation, the Kerala High Court has ruled while upholding a family court’s decision granting him divorce. In its July 22 order, the court observed that repeated reconciliation efforts had failed over the years and the marriage had irretrievably broken down, making it impossible to force the husband to continue the relationship.
The case stemmed from a marriage solemnised under the Special Marriage Act in 1991 after the couple fell in love while working at the government secretariat in Thiruvananthapuram. Years later, the husband approached the family court seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty.
According to the court order, the husband alleged that his wife frequently abused him and his mother, levelled false accusations against him and repeatedly humiliated him before relatives and strangers. He further claimed that she neglected her responsibilities towards the family and made baseless allegations about his relationship with his mother, causing him severe mental cruelty.
The husband also claimed that “slowly the respondent/wife began to exhibit maladjusted behaviour and deviation from her original thought of secular life.”
The wife, however, denied all the allegations. Instead, she claimed that she had been harassed by her husband’s mother and maintained that she had always wanted to preserve the marriage. She also urged the court to direct her husband to resume marital life with her.
In 2013, the family court granted the husband a decree of divorce and dismissed the wife’s counterclaim. Challenging the verdict, she moved the Kerala High Court.
While hearing the appeal, the division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen made multiple attempts to reconcile the couple through mediation and counselling. However, a psychological assessment submitted before the court painted a striking picture.
The report revealed that despite the divorce decree, the couple had continued living under the same roof since 2013—but not as husband and wife.
“The respondent/husband explained that they share the home because the appellant/wife has no ties to other relatives and their son lives abroad; even their long standing acquaintance, he saw no issues in sharing the residence and he also stated that he has no objection in his wife residing in his house till his death,” the court order reads.
The assessment further found that the wife’s insistence on reviving the marriage appeared to be driven by her isolation and lack of family support, especially as their son lived abroad and she shared a weak emotional bond with him.
After re-examining the evidence, the High Court concluded that the husband had successfully established grounds for divorce and agreed with the family court’s findings.
“Merely by stating that the appellant was ready and willing to resume cohabitation with the respondent is not sufficient enough to dis-entitle the respondent from getting a decree for dissolution of marriage,” the bench noted.
Finding no reason to interfere with the family court’s ruling, the High Court dismissed the wife’s appeal and upheld the decree dissolving the marriage. The judgment reinforces that courts cannot compel a spouse to continue a marriage that has broken down beyond repair merely because the other partner expresses a willingness to reconcile.